Except..... a couple of v senior doctors have told me (in public seminars in front of lawyers and HCPs) they would do CPR on me regardless of my ADRT. Because I'm not terminally ill. Because (they think) I'd thank them afterwards. Because (they think) its in my best interests.
-
-
Replying to @KitzingerCelia @drkathrynmannix and
Did none of the lawyers see fit to warn those senior doctors that they were threatening to commit a criminal act? Not that they should need telling!
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @C7RKY @drkathrynmannix and
Lawyers in 1 seminar were aghast at threat to treat me counter to my ADRT +apparently bemused in the other Yes, lawyers warned it was potentially assault but both doctors (separately) pointed out that no HCP has (yet) been found guilty of GIVING treatment.
@JoSamanta2@israblack1 reply 3 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @KitzingerCelia @C7RKY and
Their point was that, even though I'd just said I refused CPR under all circumstances (and they did not doubt my capacity) + I said I had an ADRT refusing CPR, + my Welfare Attorney was in same seminar + supported my refusal - nevertheless if I had cardiac arrest they'd do CPR.
3 replies 2 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @KitzingerCelia @C7RKY and
In the quite famous Ms B case (which I hope is on the med school curriculum), the treating professionals were found to have battered the patient. Treatment over a valid refusal is likely also to be a human rights violation, engaging the liability of the HA.
1 reply 2 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @israblack @KitzingerCelia and
Also (apologies if this is obv to non-lawyers too), people who have been legally wronged don't start proceedings for a variety of reasons, not least expense and stress. But low risk of liability doesn't make it any less wrong to treat people with capacity against their wishes.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @israblack @KitzingerCelia and
Treatment over valid consent is medical conduct that is both reproducible and liable to undermine trust in the medical profession. It is a violation of good medical practice that
@gmcuk ought to take very seriously.2 replies 2 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @israblack @C7RKY and
Here's a BBC report of the case - http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/22/newsid_2543000/2543739.stm … but despite finding of "unlawful trespass", damages against NHS were nominal (£100). Recent case of Brenda Grant (hospital lost her ADRT + treated contrary to it) is encouraging - an out-of-court settlement of £45,000.
2 replies 3 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @KitzingerCelia @israblack and
I hope to add another case to this list soon. But I don't understand something about this case - why no mention of a police investigation? If trespass against the person was proved in court, then that's a criminal offence. The exact same one I'm trying to have prosecuted now.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY @KitzingerCelia and
Someone has to involve the police. Even when the police have investigated and pass a file to
@cpsuk, prosecution doesn't always follow from there being a realistic prospect of a conviction on the facts—see the Code for Crown Prosecutors.2 replies 1 retweet 1 like
Appreciated. I've met with senior police investigators and a senior CPS bod (can't remember his job title), together with my MP. The results were farcical, but I shan't attempt to explain all that in 280 characters" :)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.