Challenging The Court Of Protection’s Decision On Grounds Of Religion And Belief

The Court of Protection makes decisions for individuals who lack capacity and are therefore unable to make decisions for themselves.

Our previous blog sets out the guidelines when considering what is deemed to be a lack of capacity. In cases before the Court of Protection, where there has been a finding that the Protected Party lacks capacity, the Court will make a decision based on their best interests. Cases in the Court of Protection can relate to an individual’s health and welfare or property and finances.

When considering what is in an individual’s best interests, the Court of Protection will take into account all of the circumstances relating to the individual and the decision in question. This can include the individual’s finances, wishes and beliefs, medical history, and extrinsic evidence from experts instructed. The weight of each factor will depend on the circumstances of each case, and the Court of Protection takes a holistic view overall to make a decision in respect of an individual’s best interests. The Court of Protection places a particular focus on promoting the Protected Party’s self-autonomy and wishes.

XY (Withdrawal of Treatment) [2024] EWCA Civ 1466

Background

In the recent case of Re XY (withdrawal of treatment), the Court previously decided it was in XY’s best interests for her life sustaining treatment to be withdrawn and instead for XY to be placed on end-of-life treatment. This decision was made after considering several surrounding factors, but predominantly, due to the medical experts commenting that XY had no prospects of recovery. This decision was appealed by the family of XY as they felt insufficient weight had been given to XY’s wishes and beliefs. XY’s family also disputed that there were no prospects of recovery and believed XY had been able to respond to simple commands.

XY’s family submitted that, as a Christian, XY held the view that only God can decide when a person lives and dies, and therefore, the life-sustaining treatment should continue. The Court of Protection found the preceding Judge considered XY’s faith as submitted by the family and noted that, whilst XY was a Christian, her views surrounding clinical and life sustaining treatment were unknown. XY’s strong religious beliefs could not be interpreted to imply XY would have insisted on life sustaining treatment. It was also noted that the medical experts considered the possibility of XY being able to respond to commands, which was outside all acceptable medical knowledge.

When considering all factors, the Judge considered sufficient weight was given to XY’s faith however, the medical evidence outweighed this, and it could not be in XY’s best interests to continue receiving life sustaining treatment. Further supporting that decision, the Court noted the provision of that treatment, if successful (of which there were remote prospects), would ultimately lead to a poor quality of life for XY. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Comment

This case again demonstrates how the Court of Protection considers and weighs up all factors when making a best interest decision on behalf of a Protected Party. In this case, there was a possibility that the Protected Party’s beliefs may have been against the Court’s findings; however, all other evidence outweighed those beliefs, being in the Protected Party’s best interests.