Re T (Adult: Medical treatment)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date30 July 1992
Date30 July 1992
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)

Court of Appeal

Before Lord Donaldson of Lymington, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Butler-Sloss and Lord Justice Staughton

In re T (Adult: Medical treatment)

Medical treatment - refusal of consent - blood transfusion

Doctors to consider capacity of patients who refuse

Doctors faced with an adult patient's refusal to consent to proposed treatment had to consider the true scope and basis of that refusal. They further had to give careful consideration to the patient's capacity to make the decision at the time it was made and to whether the patient's refusal represented his own independent decision or had been vitiated by external pressure

The Court of Appeal so stated giving reasons for dismissing an appeal on July 24 by the Official Solicitor acting on behalf of T, an unconscious female patient, from Mr Justice Ward who, sitting at Nottingham on July 14, had declared on the application of her father that it was lawful for the doctors of the hospital responsible for her care to administer blood to her in the circumstances which had arisen.

Mr James Munby, QC and Mr Christopher Butler for the Official Solicitor; Mr David Stembridge, QC and Mr Stephen Oliver-Jones for the health authorities; Mr Allan Levy, QC and Mr Peter Rank for the father; Mr Richard Daniel for the mother.

THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS said that the appeal was not about the right to die but about the right to choose how to live and whether T really did choose and if so what choice she had made.

An adult patient like T who suffered from no mental incapacity had an absolute right to choose whether to consent to medical treatment, to refuse it, or to choose one rather than another of the treatments being offered, with the only possible qualification arising where the choice might lead to the death of a viable foetus.

That right of choice existed even if the reasons for making it were rational, irrational, unknown or even non-existent: see Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital and Maudsley HospitalELR ([1985] AC 871, 904-905).

Role of consent

The law required that an adult patient who was mentally and physically capable of exercising a choice had to consent if his medical treatment was to be lawful. The consent did not have to be in writing and might be inferred from the patient's conduct in the context of the surrounding circumstances. Treatment without consent, or despite a refusal of consent would constitute trespass to the person and might also constitute a crime.

Where the patient made no choice and was in no...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Re R (A Child) (IVF: Paternity of Child)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 20 Julio 2001
    ...v S[1998] 2 FCR 685, [1999] Fam 26, [1998] 3 All ER 673, [1998] 3 WLR 936, [1998] 2 FLR 728, CA. T (an adult: medical treatment), Re[1992] 2 FCR 861, [1993] Fam 95, [1992] 4 All ER 649, [1992] 3 WLR 782, [1992] 2 FLR 458, CA. T v T [1988] Fam 52, [1988] 1 All ER 613, [1988] 2 WLR 189, [1988......
  • R (Burke) v General Medical Council
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 30 Julio 2004
    ...669, [2002] 2 WLR 1465. Soering v UK (1989) 11 EHRR 429, ECt HR. T v UK [2000] 2 All ER 1024, ECt HR. T (an adult: medical treatment), Re[1992] 2 FCR 861, [1992] 4 All ER 649, [1993] Fam 95, [1992] 3 WLR 782, [1992] 2 FLR 458, V (a child) (care proceedings: human rights claims), Re[2004] EW......
  • Re M (Adult Patient) (Minimally Conscious State: Withdrawal of Treatment) [Court of Protection]
    • United Kingdom
    • Family Division
    • 28 Septiembre 2011
    ...(medical treatment), Re[2000] 2 FCR 452, [2001] Fam 15, [2000] 3 WLR 1288, [2000] 2 FLR 289, CA. T (An Adult: Medical Treatment), Re[1992] 2 FCR 861, [1992] 4 All ER 649, [1993] Fam 95, [1992] 3 WLR 782, [1992] 2 FLR 458, W Healthcare NHS Trust v H[2004] EWCA Civ 1324, [2005] 1 WLR 834. Wen......
  • Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 22 Septiembre 2000
    ...medical treatment), Re[1997] 2 FCR 363, [1997] 1 All ER 906, [1997] 1 WLR 242, [1997] 1 FLR 502, CA. T (an adult: medical treatment), Re[1992] 2 FCR 861, [1993] Fam 95, [1992] 4 All ER 649, [1992] 3 WLR 782, [1992] 2 FLR 458, T and E (children’s proceedings: conflicting interests), Re[1995]......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT