The judge was asked to decide whether a woman should be allowed to suffer from Covid-19 with left brain damage and paralysis from the neck down.
gentlemen justice Hayden is considering evidence in an online trial, which is scheduled to end later this week. Protection court There, judges oversee hearings centered on adults who lack the mental capacity to make decisions.
Experts treat this woman in her 50s at Addenbrooke’s hospital exist Cambridge Said that life support treatment should end. The woman’s child and sister disagreed.
On Tuesday, a lawyer representing the hospital owner told Judge Hayden that the woman’s case seemed unique.
Due to Covid, this is the first time the court has been asked to consider a terminal case.I suspect that this is a case that will attract a lot of public attention.
Judge Hayden, he works in the Department of Family Affairs High court In London, it is said that this is the first case of its kind.
Judge Hayden said: “This is the most extreme example of its kind. During the entire pandemic, this is the first time I have been asked to make an end-of-life decision related to Covid-19,” at the beginning of the trial.
“Due to Covid, this is the first time the court has been asked to consider a terminal case. Therefore, I suspect this is a case that will attract a lot of public attention.”
The judge stated that media reports on the case could not determine the identity of the woman.
Judge Hayden will hear testimony from experts and relatives of the woman.
He said he would consider evidence and medical evidence related to what the woman wanted.
An expert told him that the woman’s family was “tortured every day.”
He said that the woman’s case unfolded in “the most terrifying way.”
The details of the case appeared at the preliminary hearing in July.
Barrister Katie Golop QC, representing the hospital owner, told the judge that the woman was admitted to the hospital “emergencyly” at the end of 2020 and was on a ventilator.
Ms. Golop said that the woman’s case seemed “unique”.
She said the woman was “almost completely paralyzed” and had “severe” cognitive impairment, and told the judge: “They cannot improve any aspect of her condition.”
Ms. Golop said that experts believe that the woman’s future will be “prone to pain and discomfort.”
She said that the woman’s family believed that some of the treatment provided was “negligence”.
Ms. Gollop said that relatives believed that the hospital owner applied to the Protection Tribunal because they wanted to “cover up” the consequences of this “negligence treatment”.
This woman is represented by the staff of the official lawyer’s office, who help vulnerable groups involved in litigation.
Nageena Khalique QC, who leads the women’s legal team, told the judge that the case was “extraordinarily difficult”.
She said that official lawyer Sarah Castle had not yet reached a “final position” on the woman’s best interests.
Ms. Halek said the woman had underlying health problems, including diabetes.
An expert also told the judge that the woman was “a little overweight.”
Ms. Halik said that “there is no direct record” of what the woman hoped to happen “under this situation”.
But she said there was evidence that the woman had “strong religious beliefs.”
Ms. Halik said that the woman’s family thought she “does not want to end her life in this way” because it “is tantamount to suicide.”
