ABSTRACT
The patient may be days away from the maturity of an insurance policy, earmarked as an essential support for the family's finances; or perhaps a wedding or birth is imminent, at which the patient regards herself as an essential guest. The prospect of remaining alive for these events may be, for the patient, a sufficient benefit to make the risk of enduring cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) acceptable. The mother of 28-year-old Carl Winspear claimed that his human rights were breached, because she was not consulted over the Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decision made about him. The court found that in the circumstances, it would have been appropriate to discuss the proposed decision with Carl's mother; it was plainly important; she had been Carl's lifelong carer; she had travelled into hospital with him and had remained in contact while at home. This case provides explicit guidance.
