Celia Kitzinger and Amber Dar, '“Non-mainstream” treatments and CPR for a COVID-19 patient in intensive care' (Open Justice COP Project, 24/1/22)

Coronavirus treatment and CPR In this hearing Hayden J expressed his orthodox views on the treatment of coronavirus with hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, azithromycin and doxycycline (declining to declare that treatment to be in AB's best interests as it would require doctors to act "unethically" and inconsistently with medical evidence) and his views on dignity at the end of life (declining to declare that attempting CPR would be in AB's best interests as he agreed with the doctors that it would be futile). The blog post notes that the Trust had framed both matters (treatment and CPR) solely in terms of best interests until revealing in cross-examination that the treatment was not an available option (and being ambiguous about the availability of CPR), and wonders why the case even got to court and took so long given that the court will not compel doctors to act against their clinical judgment. Reading between the lines, though, it seems that the judge was keen not to lose the opportunity to air his opinions: for example, he interrupted an early question which would have established whether the team would administer CPR if it were declared to be in AB's best interests by stating that "this is not the point at which to ask that question" and instead asking a closed question about whether any CPR success would reduce AB's quality of life.


Download: URL

Type: Blog post🔍 · Coronavirus resource🔍

Title: "Non-mainstream" treatments and CPR for a COVID-19 patient in intensive care

Author: Kitzinger, Celia🔍 · Dar, Amber🔍

Publication: Open Justice COP Project🔍

Date: 24/1/22🔍

What links here:

  • No pages link to this page