Patientsandcarerssharetheir experiencesofdecisionmaking
One of the four, a Mr David Fulton, has now written to the government’s Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA) asking its staff to overrule the decision.
In his letter Mr Fulton accuses the author of a council report on the group’s application of ignoring “a key section of guidance” and then replacing the government’s definition of what constitutes a high hedge “with a dictionary definition in order to invalidate the trees from the application”.
He told the DPEA: “It is my contention that, were a piece of statutory legislation provides a specific definition of the subject matter, secondary definitions from other sources, including the dictionary or even commonly held notions, are superceded and set aside.
“This is normal legal practice. Only a change in the statute itself can change the definition provided.
“The net effect of this is that the stated intention of the act - to assist those Patients and carers have joined together to discuss their experiences of shared decision making when it comes to prescribing medicine.
Hosted by NHS Tayside in partnership with its patient and public forum for medicines, the networking workshop brought together public partners and third sector representatives to discuss the importance of empowering patients to be more involved in decisions about their treatment.
During the event, members of Inform Theatre performed clinical appointment scenarios to prompt discussion around good and bad practice between doctors and patients. residents affected by ‘hedges, shrubs and trees’ blocking light to homes - is completely undermined.”
Mr Fulton concluded: “I contend that through a lack of proper consideration of relevant sections of the guidance and by failing to apply the actual wording of the act, the report author has unfairly and improperly rejected the residents’ joint application on an erroneous basis.
“It is not helped by the fact that recent government guidance has created a huge amount of ambiguity in terms of the definition but, nevertheless, the statutory definition is the only valid one when considering a case under the act.
“We have diligently followed our obligations as applicants and affected parties under the act and paid a fee of £300 in good faith. As such, we look to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.”
The DPEA has since said the group’s appeal is in order and will be allocated to one of its reporters shortly.
Fran Benison, one member of the patient and public forum for medicines, talked about her MS diagnosis and how she was able to control and manage her condition without medicine, and how becoming part of the forum had empowered her to ask questions and make shared decisions with her consultant.
GP Dr Alison Clement also shared her experiences of prescribing medicine and gave examples of shred decisions around switching or stopping medicines due to side effects of lack of clinical benefit.
She said: “There was a huge amount of passion and commitment from everyone attending this event to improve shared decision making around medicines.
“This is only the start of our prescribing strategy, supported through Transforming Tayside, to ensure that everyone taking medicines in Tayside has access to all the support and information they need to make the best decisions for them.”
Those taking part in the workshop were then able to explore four different themes - the national Citizen’s Jury on shared decision making, coproduced materials to support shared decisions and empower patients, advocacy to support shared decision making, and how shared decision making can be done in Tayside.