Mental Capacity Act,Anorexia Nervosa and the Choice Between Life‐Prolonging Treatment and Palliative Care: A NHS Foundation Trust v Ms X

The Court of Protection decided in A NHS Foundation Trust v Ms X that an anorexia nervosa patient lacked the capacity to refuse treatment for her eating disorder, but that it was not in her best‐interests to be subject to force‐feeding to prolong her life. The Court, vindicating previous judgments in similar cases, considered that the eating disorder rendered the patient incapable of deciding on nutrition and, therefore, that she lacked the capacity to refuse treatment for anorexia nervosa. This paper questions the narrow way in which the patient's decision was characterised by the Court in this and previous cases, which led to an application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 that is incompatible with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities because, based on a diagnosis only, anorexia nervosa patients were denied the right to decide where the balance lies between quality and duration of their own lives.     

Can parity of self-esteem serve as the basis of the principle of linguistic territoriality?

In this paper, I argue that Philippe Van Parijs’ argument for the principle of linguistic territoriality rests upon an unexamined and unvindicated assumption, to the effect that most situations in which smaller languages are threatened by larger ones can be assimilated to ‘colonial cases’, that is to cases in which there is injustice as between the two linguistic groups, as opposed to ‘mere number cases’, that is cases in which linguistic groups of different sizes coexist in the absence of injustice. Moreover, I argue that Van Parijs underestimates the amount of coercion that will have to be applied even within linguistically defined territories in order to avoid the erosion of the smaller language.