Family suing care home over mother’s end of life consent
09 January 2023
Family suing care home over mother’s end of life consent
The BBC has reported that Tony Stowell is suing a nursing home because of the decision to put his mother Antonia Stowell on end of life care without notifying the family (Source - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64164338). Antonia lacked capacity to make decisions for herself. It is alleged that, if the proposal to commence end of life care had been discussed with the family, they would not have agreed to it and they would have ensured that Antonia received treatment following the diagnosis of suspected pneumonia. It is claimed that the provision of treatment could have prolonged Antonia’s life.
An individual has the right to make decisions about their own health and whether to accept treatment or not. A patient can only provide informed consent to the proposed treatment if the medical provider discloses information on the treatment, test or procedure in question, including the expected benefits and risks, and the likelihood that the benefits and risks will occur. The advice should be specifically tailored to the individual patient and their circumstances. The treatment should only then progress if the patient voluntarily grants their consent without coercion or duress. Where a patient lacks capacity, the decision must be made by a family member or Carer unless there is a medical emergency. Anything short of this may possibly give rise to a claim for financial compensation for lack of informed consent.
More information about informed consent can be found on our dedicated webpage - https://curtislaw.co.uk/clinical-negligence/informed-consent .
The case is a reminder of concerns that were raised about decision making during the pandemic. The Care Quality Commission (‘CQC’) previously reported that more than 500 people were put on do not resuscitate orders without appropriate consent during the coronavirus pandemic, this following an interim report in November 2020 which found that increasing pressure during the pandemic coupled with a lack of rigid guidance may have led to decisions concerning do not resuscitate orders “being incorrectly conflated with other clinical assessments around critical care”. The CQC study noted concerns that 'do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation' (DNACPR) decisions were being made without involving people, or their families and/or carers if so wished, and were being applied to groups of people, rather than considering each person's individual circumstances.
If you wish to discuss a potential clinical negligence claim with our specialist solicitors you can contact us through our online enquiry form, free phone on 0800 008 7450, call our mobile friendly number 0333 2400340 or text "CURTIS" to 82727.