SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE CASADEVALL

(Translation)

1. I have difficulties with paragraph 83 of the judgment, in which the Court states that it “does not consider it necessary to examine separately the applicants ' complaint regarding the inclusion of the DNR notice in the first applicant ' s case notes without the consent and knowledge of the second applicant ” . In the circumstances of this case that notice amounts – in my opinion – to an important and aggravating factor regarding the issue in question which helps to understand better the qualms and distress experienced by the mother of the first applicant and her manner of dealing with the situation during the disturbing and unbelievable fight that broke out between certain members of the family and the hospital doctors (see paragraphs 29 and 30 of the present judgment ).

2. I can fully understand that the patient ' s condition was such that it was medically necessary to administer him diamorphine urgently in order to alleviate his suffering, perhaps even without his mother ' s knowledge. I find it difficult to accept, however, that the doctors unilaterally took the serious decision of putting a d o -n ot -r esuscitate order (DNR) in the first applicant ' s case notes without the mother ' s consent and knowledge. I find the comment in paragraph 83 of the judgment that the order “was only directed against the application of vigorous cardiac massage and intensive respiratory support ...” inappropriate. Beyond any speculation as to what would have been the outcome of an application to the High Court for authorisation to pursue the treatment proposed by the doctors (see paragraph 87 of the judgment ), the facts have shown – nearly six years later and to date – that, in the particular circumstances of the present case, maternal instinct has had more weight than medical opinion.

3. In my view, therefore, the complaint deserved an additional examination.