View source for Re X (amputation) (2014) MHLO 89 (CA)

''The Court of Protection had decided that X lacked capacity to consent to a below-knee amputation to treat her foot infection, and that this treatment was in her best interests. The Court of Appeal refused her  son permission to appeal. (1) The judge's decision on capacity was correct. (2) The judge was also correct on best interests: there was no need for further tests to determine best interests; the medical experts had no difficulty reaching their conclusions and there was no disagreement; the alternatives were unsuitable (for example, antibiotics would cease to be effective); the son was worried about death in theatre, but in fact surgery gave X the best chance of survival; her condition was deteriorating and the infection would spread without amputation.'' (Summary based on Lawtel report of ex tempore judgment - transcript not available at time of writing.)

==Other==
Before: Laws LJ, Richards LJ, Gloster LJ

Date: 7/8/14 (ex tempore judgment)

==External links==
{{#bailii:no ncn}}

{{link|http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/health/birmingham-pensioner-ordered-judges-maggot-infested-7583835|Brett Gibbons, 'Birmingham pensioner ordered by judges to have maggot-infested foot amputated' (Birmingham Mail, 9/8/14)|s}}

[[Category:Best interests]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:No transcript]]
[[Category:2014 cases]]