Amelia Hill in the Guardian on Sunday questions the motivations and efficacy of the Court of Protection whose role it is to take very difficult decisions for people who lack capacity. I am always divided when these comments surface – on the one hand the Court operated for years in a shroud of secrecy and was guilty of failing to communicate properly with the public. However, it has worked tirelessly to address this, particularly with Martin John at the helm as the Public Guardian (head of the Office of the Public Guardian – the department that manages all the paperwork for the Court).
The article also highlights one of the main issues that occurs in every walk of life where the authorities make decisions that can override what a family wants – that when the Court goes against the family the family declares it draconian, but where the Court supports the family it is applauded. This is human nature but does not mean the Court is either inherently good or inherently bad.
I sympathise with anyone who needs to use the Court of Protection as they only engage with it when someone they know and probably love has experienced a serious accident or debilitating illness, however I am wary of scare mongering and suggesting that there is a malevolent force at work rather than a government body with a very difficult job on its hands.
To read the article please click here.