At first glance, this case might give the impression that a resolution would have been straightforward. A 17-year-old young man with moderate to severe learning disabilities and other conditions discussed below required a kidney transplant–the Court of Protection was tasked with determining whether this was in his best interests. However, the case of WV was in fact far more technical and required nuanced discussion and expert medical evidence from a range of specialists to objectively balance the needs of WV and the risks to WV, and to ultimately determine his fate of life or death based on receiving a kidney transplant.
Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (“The Trust”) applied for a declaration in relation to the capacity of William Verdon (“WV”) and for the court to consider whether an order should be made that it was not in his best interests to have a kidney transplant with sedation and ventilation post-operatively.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust v WV [2022] EWCOP 9
Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v James [2013] UKSC 67
Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v Hasstrup [2018] EWHC 127 (Fam)
Re Y (No 1) [2015] EWHC 1920 (Fam).
Burke v UK [2006] (App 19807/06) ECHR 1212.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bhatia, N. Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust v WV [2022] EWCOP 9. Bioethical Inquiry 19, 357–361 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-022-10196-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-022-10196-6