Mr B, aged 73 and a paranoid schizophrenic, had Type II diabetes and a severely infected leg. Unless his foot was amputated he would die, possibly within a few days; otherwise, he might live for a few years more. He had experienced persistent auditory hallucinations of angels and the Virgin Mary. In 2015 he was detained under section 3 of the Mental Health Act; nevertheless, he resisted antibiotics for his foot and diabetes medication and, though his mental health began to recover, his physical health deteriorated. Without surgery he would soon die an avoidable death; with it, however, he might recover some quality of life. The principal consideration against amputation was that he had strongly opposed it from the outset. Moreover, the surgery might compromise his mental health, he might lose his leg, his current quality of life was at his own estimation very poor and he would never live independently again.

A person was entitled to the protection of the European Convention on Human Rights whether or not he had the capacity to make decisions for himself, and Articles 2, 3 and 9 were engaged. An enforced amputation would not be in Mr B's best interests. He saw no reason to prefer others' views to his own, and his religious beliefs were not delusional but deeply meaningful to him. The court observed that his fortitude in the face of death, however he has come by it, would be the envy of many people in better mental health. An operation against his will would take away his remaining independence and dignity. The application was refused. [Frank Cranmer]