View source for Winspear v City Hospitals Sunderland NHSFT (2015) EWHC 3250 (QB), (2015) MHLO 104

''(1) The core principle of prior consultation before a DNACPR decision is put into place on the case file applies in cases both of capacity and absence of capacity. If it is both practicable and appropriate to consult before doing so then, in the absence of some other compelling reason against consultation, it would be procedurally flawed to proceed without consultation. It would not meet the requirements of [[MCA 2005 s4]](7); it would accordingly not be in accordance with the law. It would be an interference with [[Article 8]](1) that is not justified under Article 8(2). (2) The claimant (patient's mother) sought damages both personally and as personal representative. The judge was not persuaded that she has any personal claim for damages, and decided that a declaration reflecting the procedural breach of Article 8 was sufficient.''

==ICLR==
{{ICLR|Winspear v City Hospitals Sunderland NHSFT (2015) EWHC 3250 (QB), (2015) MHLO 104}}

==External link==
{{#bailii:(2015) EWHC 3250 (QB)}}

[[Category:Other capacity cases]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2015 cases]]