Legal Threat for Govt re DNR Process for Care Home & Disabled C19 Patients

[papasmurf]

The Leigh Day website the legal firm dealing with the case has more detail on their website and other matters of interest:-



https://www.leighday.co.uk/News">https://www.leighday.co.uk/News



https://www.leighday.co.uk/News/Press-releases-2020/May-2020/Legal-challenge-to-governments-lack-of-guidance-o">https://www.leighday.co.uk/News/Press-r ... guidance-o">https://www.leighday.co.uk/News/Press-releases-2020/May-2020/Legal-challenge-to-governments-lack-of-guidance-o

[Borg Refinery]

https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2020/05/06/matt-hancock-could-face-court-action-over-the-illegal-treatment-of-disabled-people-during-lockdown/">https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/20 ... -lockdown/">https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2020/05/06/matt-hancock-could-face-court-action-over-the-illegal-treatment-of-disabled-people-during-lockdown/

As The Canary previously reported, there have been press and social media reports of an increase in medical professionals' use of DNRs. One GP practice targeted people with "neurological conditions". And in terms of government guidance, this would include learning-disabled people. One charity that provides residential support to learning-disabled people claimed it had an upsurge in what it said were "illegal" DNRs. As The Canary estimated, if this charity's experience was happening nationally, up to 19,000 learning-disabled people in England could be subject to unlawful DNRs.

Now, someone is legally challenging the government on the situation.



Looming legal action?

The law as it stands means doctors decide whom they place DNRs on. It also means that, in some situations, they don't have to tell the patient or families about the DNRs. Nor do these people have to agree (consent). But because of media reports about a rise in DNRs, Kate Masters has decided to act. She is the daughter of David Tracey, who in 2014 made a successful legal challenge to his late wife Janet's DNR. At the time, the judge ruled that a DNR:



"decision is one which will potentially deprive the patient of life-saving treatment, there should be a presumption in favour of patient involvement. There need to be convincing reasons not to involve the patient. ...



The duty to consult ... involves a discussion, where practicable, about the patient's wishes and feelings that is better undertaken at the earliest stages of the clinical relationship so that decisions can be reviewed as circumstances change. That involves an acknowledgement that the duty to consult is integral to the respect for the dignity of the patient."



But in recent months, it appears that doctors may not have been adhering to that ruling. ( https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2020/04/26/theres-been-a-surge-in-unlawful-attempts-to-not-save-disabled-people-from-coronavirus/">https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/20 ... ronavirus/">https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2020/04/26/theres-been-a-surge-in-unlawful-attempts-to-not-save-disabled-people-from-coronavirus/ )



Safeguards needed

Masters wants the government to use its emergency coronavirus laws to put several safeguards in place. These state that doctors must not issue DNR notices unless the patient and/or their family/carers are:



Told "that it is not appropriate to consider CPR and why".

Provided with "an opportunity to discuss their views and wishes regarding receiving CPR with the healthcare professional making the decision".

Given "clear information as to how the healthcare professional will take into account their views/wishes, the relevance of clinical judgement regarding efficacy of CPR (including being clear consent is not required) and how resource constraints are taken into account".

"Informed of the DNR decision and the reasons why (which must be individual to the patient)".

Advised "they can request a second opinion if they disagree with the decision".

If Hancock doesn't respond by 7 May, she will consider bringing a judicial review to force his and the government's hands.



Upholding human rights

Masters said in a press release for The Canary:



I have watched with alarm as reports of blanket DNR orders in care homes and failures to consult with patients and their families have been reported in the news since the start of the coronavirus crisis. After all that my dad did to fight to clarify the law regarding DNRs I am determined to ensure that my human rights and those of others are not breached due to a lack of government direction.



‌

Leigh Day solicitor Merry Varney said:



DNRs imposed in circumstances where patients and their families have no or little information, and no consultation, often lead to a complete breakdown in trust and numerous stories reported in the media show how common it is that patients and families believe these cannot be imposed without consent. Healthcare professionals are already overburdened, our client believes it is time for the government to step up and give national guidance that will ensure consistent and lawful decision-making at a local level and also ensure patients' fundamental human rights are being upheld.

(for those averse to lefty sources; https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8292887/amp/Family-won-DNR-lawsuit-threaten-sue-government-use-Covid-patients.html">https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailym ... ients.html">https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8292887/amp/Family-won-DNR-lawsuit-threaten-sue-government-use-Covid-patients.html )



If true, then the law must be amended pronto, and the evidence seems fairly convincing.