This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/25/woman-died-kidney-treatment-losing-sparkle-cannot-be-named-court-rules
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Woman who died after 'losing sparkle' cannot be named, court rules | Woman who died after 'losing sparkle' cannot be named, court rules |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| The court of protection has declined to name a 50-year-old woman who died after refusing life-saving kidney treatment because she said life had lost its “sparkle”. | The court of protection has declined to name a 50-year-old woman who died after refusing life-saving kidney treatment because she said life had lost its “sparkle”. |
| Mr Justice Charles, the second most senior court of protection judge in England and Wales, handed down the decision after media organisations applied for the woman to be identified on the grounds that she had died. | Mr Justice Charles, the second most senior court of protection judge in England and Wales, handed down the decision after media organisations applied for the woman to be identified on the grounds that she had died. |
| Her case became the subject of legal action after King’s College hospital NHS foundation trust in London asked a judge to decide whether she had the mental capacity to decide to refuse treatment. | |
| Unusually, the order banning her identification has been extended to cover the forthcoming inquest into her death. | Unusually, the order banning her identification has been extended to cover the forthcoming inquest into her death. |
| Charles said that the court of protection, while examining whether the woman had sufficient mental capacity to refuse treatment, had “invaded their private and family lives and made a finding … that has had a profound effect and impact on [the family]”. | |
| The judge said that there was no public interest in C, as the woman is known in the court proceedings, being identified. | |
| Extending the order to cover the inquest, which will be held in open court, was necessary, Charles added. “The prurient nature of some of the earlier reporting is a clear indicator that such reporting might be repeated,” he said. | |
| Four media groups – Associated Newspapers, Times Newspapers, Independent News and Media and the Telegraph Media Group – had argued that journalists should be allowed to identify the woman now she had died. |