11/12/2023 0 Comments Macro vs![]() If you categorize scripting languages as those that don't compile, are parsed and easy to use then there are many languages that fit those requirements. The key here is the role of the user as a programmer, and the fact that users are not programmers. Scripts are often an application specific programming language that automate tasks for the user. If macros are to application output, then scripts are to application automation. There are also macros that can be written by the user but the goal is often to yield a desired output. The output changed by the macro was often previously recorded by one of those devices. Since user input tends to be related to keyboards, mouse and other devices. The key aspect here is the changing of user input/output at the application level. In CDM’s case, therefore, every action in relation to the management of her diabetes would fall to be considered by reference to her best interests, taking into account, of course, her wishes and feelings.The common usage of macros is in software applications, and they originated as a tool to map user input to a different set of user output. In this case, however, Newton J noted that:ĭuring the course of evidence, Dr Beck was asked for more guidance as to the signs when CDM becomes emotionally dysregulated and whether she has lost capacity in respect to either of the micro-decisions but, Dr Beck was simply unable to do so, because it was impossible to do so. ![]() This case could be contrasted with that of United Lincolnshire Hospital NHS Trust v CD EWCOP 24, in which Francis J held that where the circumstances under which the woman in question would lack capacity to make decisions about birth arrangements were sufficiently clear that it was possible to make a ‘contingent’ declaration about what could then happen in her best interests at that point. ![]() CDM has diabetes which is not unique to her, being shared with many other millions of people in the United Kingdom, but as an individual the factors are unique. The elements in relation to CDM’s own particular conditions are unique to her. ![]() No two people self-evidently are ever the same, their condition the same condition, or the circumstances the same. Necessary or helpful to draw inferences or parallels on examples of other conditions or other classes of individuals, since the interrelationship between the micro and macro-decisions still needs to be decided, having regard to a particular individual in particular circumstances, and having regard to their particular condition. ![]() However, if the court accepts the expert’s opinions, as I do, and approaches the matter on the basis of their conclusions, logically, legally and practically, it is a macro-decision, and CDM lacks capacity to take the macro-decision, the issue of fluctuating capacity simply does not arise. that her capacity does in fact fluctuate. Andī) that CDM lacks the capacity to make those decisions, and having regard to the enduring nature of her personality disorder which is lifelong and therefore unlikely to change.Īcknowledge, as do the experts, that there may be occasions when CDM has the capacity to make micro-decisions in respect of her diabetes and occasions when she does not, i.e. In a judgment delivered in February, but only just appearing on Bailii EWCOP 32, Newton J reached the “very clear conclusion” on the evidence and on the law, accepting the analysis of the experts, that:Ī) on the assessment of capacity to make decisions about diabetes management, in all its health consequences, the matter is a global decision, arising from the inter dependence of diet testing her blood glucose and ketone levels administration of insulin and, admission to hospital when necessary in the light of blood glucose levels. Cohen J held that “ when making appropriate decisions she has capacity but when making manifestly inappropriate decisions she lacks capacity.” Because further medical evidence, including from a psychologist, Dr Beck, emerged, matters took an unanticipated course, and the Court of Appeal did not, in fact, consider the appeal, but rather sent the case back for a judge to consider the case on the basis of that evidence. In that case, Cohen J had held that the relevant issues were CDM’s ability to manage her diabetes and in particular (a) the ability to manage and control her blood sugar level and (b) the willingness to accept treatment when required, and that CDM’s capacity fluctuated. Some may remember that the Court of Appeal was going to give a judgment setting out what to do where a person has fluctuating capacity, in the appeal arising out of the case of RB Greenwich v CDM EWCOP 15, a complex case about the management of diabetes in the presence of emotionally unstable personality disorder. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |