Barts Health NHS Trust v CG [2026] EWCOP 55 (T3) is a relatively ‘routine’ serious medical treatment case, which Theis J identified was rightly brought because of the level of proposed restraint required both pre-operatively and post-operatively to secure the safe carrying out of eye surgery on 59 year old man, CG, suffering from a large pituitary macroadenoma. CG, who had a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, consistently refused the procedure “aris[ing] from his fixed belief that he does not have a tumour and that his difficulties can be cured by obtaining a new pair of glasses.” That fixed belief meant that he lacked the capacity to make the decision whether or not to undergo surgery.
One passage in the judgment stood out for me. At paragraph 28, Theis J held that:
Having considered the evidence I am clear that CG’s best interests are served by making the necessary declarations to permit the procedure to take place. This procedure is the standard treatment option, and CG should be placed in no worse position due to his lack of capacity than anybody else requiring this procedure. (emphasis added).
The plan advanced by the Trust would – potentially – mean that CG’s experience in undergoing that ‘standard treatment option’ might be very different to anyone else. However, in the face of so many cases in which ‘freezing’ has taken in place in the context of those with mental health conditions, leading to them suffering serious harm, if not death, in consequence of their comorbidities because of failures to take forward the standard assessment / treatment protocols for such comorbidities, it is refreshing to see the discrimination inherent in such situations identified and, in this case (I hope) avoided.
For help in avoiding these situations more broadly, I strongly recommend this guidance from SCIE: Get me to hospital.
