Speaker(s)

Victoria Butler-Cole KC is an esteemed advocate from 39 Essex Chambers. Her expertise spans public law, community care, Court of Protection, medical treatment disputes involving babies and children, inquests, human rights claims, and regulatory appeals. In her presentation Ms Butler-Cole will be discussing her work as representative for the Guardian of Charlie Gard and how subsequently decisions on novel treatment and the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment have been impacted by the case.

Speaker(s)

Tristan Cummings is the Baker-Fellingham College Assistant Professor at St Catharine’s College, Cambridge. Previously, he worked as a Stipendiary Lecturer at Merton College, Oxford where he is also a PhD researcher in law. His current research focuses on the intersection of family law, human rights law and religious freedom with a particular interest in the regulation of religious family law through a systems theoretical and reflexive law model. In his presentation, Dr Cummings will discuss the following: At the root of religion, argues Hugo Rahner, is the metaphor of play. The relationship between play and religion runs deeply. David Miller reasons that play refers to a ‘mode of consciousness’, not (just) to a certain behaviour; play alludes to a ‘profound reality’. This presentation seeks to elucidate some of the connections between the right to play and the child’s right to religion, Article 14 UNCRC. Play is both an activity, connecting the child with others, and an attitude that transcends reality. Building on my forthcoming chapter in Naomi Lott's edited collection, this presentation draws together some of the interrelationships between play and religion as rights from a child-centred perspective to argue that a proper understanding of Article 14 UNCRC must make room for play.

Speaker(s)

Ian Brownhill is a renowned advocate from 39 Essex Chambers and one of the country’s leading specialists in mental capacity and medical treatment. Outside of his expertise in the Court of Protection, Mr Brownhill advises and acts in safeguarding cases in respect of both adults and children. Mr Brownhill has provided an overview of his discussion: In respect of voluntary stopping eating and drinking, the law of England and Wales appears clear: if a patient has the capacity to make decisions as to whether to take food and drink, he is entitled to starve himself to death if he so chooses (as per Baker J in the Dr A case). This presentation will focus on tensions between the principles of autonomy and respecting life: How can the law differentiate between a patient on hunger strike due to a political belief or one experiencing a delusional disorder? What does the law do when a patient refuses, or is unable, to explain their reason for stopping eating and drinking? All patients will, at some stage, lose the mental capacity to make decisions as to their hydration and nutrition before their death. Does the Mental Capacity Act 2005 sufficiently protect the patient’s entitlement to starve themselves?