0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

TC (Urgent Medical Treatment) [2020] – authorising long term coercive treatment

5 November 2020

The decision in TC (Urgent Medical Treatment) [2020] concerned a 69-year-old woman with advanced cancer of the larynx. An urgent application was brought on behalf of the trust to authorise a 6-8-week course of chemo-radiotherapy requiring restraint. Provision of coercive treatment over a prolonged period carries a number of practical difficulties and there was therefore a heavy evidential burden to prove it was in P’s best interests.

Several challenges appeared in this evolving case as the treatment plan changed just hours before the application was heard by Cobb J. The cancer had begun to block P’s windpipe and an additional surgical procedure of endoscopic resection was required to secure the windpipe before treatment could commence.

Cobb J authorised the proposed treatment and whilst he recognised if P is not co-operative it would be a challenging 6 weeks, he was satisfied the steps taken to mitigate the impact on P will help promote a successful outcome. This included “the attentive and sensitive care” of the healthcare professionals.

This case also serves as a useful reminder of the need to bring these cases to court quickly. Cobb J recognised our efforts to bring this matter to court “so efficiently” as P’s condition continued to become increasingly life threatening.

The case illustrates the importance of effective, multi-disciplinary team working. To ensure the needs of the patient are fully met, and to withstand the scrutiny of the court, care plans cannot be drawn up unilaterally. Key to the success in this case was the MacMillan Head and Neck cancer specialist sister, who coordinated input of the various specialist teams to ensure TC would be provided the very best care and whose efforts were specifically praised by the Judge.

Co-authored by Clare Shepherd and Sian Quirk.

related opinions

Increasing organisational resilience in maternity services

On 12 November 2020, the HSIB published its latest national investigation report on maternity safety - what are the likely implications for maternity services?

View blog

Supreme Court confirms the standard of proof for suicide AND unlawful killing conclusions is the balance of probabilities. What does this mean for NHS organisations?

The Supreme Court has today delivered its judgment on the case of R (on the application of Maughan) v HM Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire. This decision has serious implications for NHS organisations, which are considered in more detail below.

View blog

The impact of coronavirus on the management of complaints and serious incident investigations in the NHS

Given the significant challenges and resource implications of the coronavirus on all NHS staff, how should Trusts manage and respond to complaints and Serious Incident Investigations? Do the relevant time limits still apply?

View blog

Maughan judgment: Court of Appeal confirms that the civil standard of proof applies to suicide conclusions for inquests

On 10 May 2019 The Court of Appeal handed down judgment in R (Maughan) v HM Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire.

View blog

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up