Medics caring for sick autistic man explored ‘all options’ – senior nurse

A judge recently ruled that the man, 26, should not be forced to undergo kidney dialysis despite the ‘potentially fatal consequence’ of not having it.

A general view of The Court of Protection and Central Family Court, in High Holborn, central London. Medics caring for an autistic man diagnosed with “chronic” kidney disease who has been at the centre of a court treatment fight have explored “all options”, a senior nurse says. PA/Nick Ansell (PA Archive)

Medics caring for an autistic man diagnosed with “chronic” kidney disease and at the centre of a court treatment fight have explored “all options”, a senior nurse has said.

A judge recently ruled that the 26-year-old man should not be forced to undergo dialysis despite the “potentially fatal consequence” of not having it.

Mr Justice Hayden was told the man did not “accept” having “chronic kidney disease”, nor see the need for dialysis, and had “frequently refused” to attend outpatient appointments.

He was told the man’s mother, who has mental health difficulties, also did not accept the diagnosis.

The judge decided that “forced restraint”, either in the face of the man’s “expressed opposition” or at a time when he was “no longer able to resist”, would “compromise his dignity”.

Bosses at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, which is responsible for the man’s treatment, had asked Mr Justice Hayden to decide what moves were in his best interests.

Belinda Dring, divisional nurse in the trust’s Cancer and Associated Specialties Division, said specialists have “worked closely” with the man and his family for a long time.

The multi-disciplinary team has worked closely with the patient, and family, over a long period of time to assist understanding of their clinical condition, and to explore all options for their care

Belinda Dring

Mr Justice Hayden had heard evidence at a recent hearing in the Court of Protection, where judges consider issues relating to people who may not have the mental capacity to make decisions, in London.

Lawyers representing specialists told him “repeated attempts” to explain the “need” for dialysis and the “potentially fatal consequence of not having it” had been unsuccessful.

They said doctors thought it would not be in the man’s best interests for “any form of restraint” to be used to “compel his attendance” at hospital or “secure dialysis”.

In a written ruling, the judge said he had spoken to the man during the hearing on a “private video-link”.

“(The man) does not want to die,” he said.

“I formed the impression that he very much wanted to live.”

The judge added: “Ultimately, all I could do was tell him that the decision was his.”

Mr Justice Hayden, who also oversees hearings in the Family Division of the High Court, said the man cannot be named in media reports of the case.