The Intensive Care Society Expresses Concern Over Supreme Court Ruling on Naming Doctors Following Court of Protection Proceedings
The Intensive Care Society is deeply concerned by the Supreme Court’s recent decision regarding the naming of doctors involved in court of protection proceedings.
We recognise that treatment decisions and in particular where there is disagreement or conflict surrounding withdrawal or limitation of life sustaining treatments, are difficult and complex situations. Each of these decisions has at the heart of it an adult or child who is loved by someone. Families understandably want reassurance that these decisions are made with the patient’s best interests at its core.
As a Society, we absolutely support a family’s right to share their story and experience. We understand the distress and trauma that can result from supporting a loved one in circumstances where decision making for best interests progresses to court proceedings. Thankfully, this step is not necessary for the vast majority of decision making in which intensive care is involved.
We also support transparency and openness in all clinical decision making — but how much that transparency should extend to public interest must be carefully balanced with the rights of doctors to maintain privacy in their personal lives and to perform their duties without fear of harassment, abuse or discrimination.
It is essential to understand that Consultants in Intensive Care do not make decisions in isolation. Any decision which reaches the court of protection will have been a collective decision that occurred in the context of multiple Consultant opinions, with input from multiple specialities and always in the context of a responsibility that is shared by the wider trust or organisation caring for a patient.
As we believe that decisions reaching the courts for scrutiny are never made by a single individual, we are concerned that it is unreasonable — and potentially harmful — to single out and name one person as the ‘face’ of a collective decision.
This ruling sets a worrying precedent and could have damaging consequences. It risks deterring clinicians from working in intensive care at a time when the specialism is already under pressure. It also risks exposing individual clinicians, and in particular Consultants in Intensive Care, to discrimination. It is vital that Consultants in Intensive Care, and the wider team, feel supported to make decisions which put the patient and their best interests first and foremost. They should not be made to carry out their duties, while shouldering the additional risk of being unfairly singled out for media scrutiny, abuse, harassment or discrimination.
Moreover while we recognise that the decision does not prevent clinicians being able to apply to extend an injunction with respect to reporting restrictions, they would have to do so in their own right. It is disappointing that clinicians working for the NHS rather than in a private capacity now seem to have to meet a higher threshold to prove their own rights outweigh those of the public interest, simply because they work for the NHS.
We urge all stakeholders — including Government, regulators, and the public — to consider the impact of this decision on intensive care and how it really serves the interests of the patient at the heart of what we do.
ENDS
The Intensive Care Society is the largest multi-professional intensive care membership organisation in the United Kingdom.
You can find more information about the Society at: www.ics.ac.uk
Media please contact: press@ics.ac.uk