Page 212: In R (Wooder) v Feggetter [2002] EWCA Civ 554, should the doctors have been required to give the patient their reasons before administering the drug? Or is it good enough to explain afterwards?

• Consider the competing views of the judges in that case
• Sedley LJ held that reasons should be given ‘in a form and at a time which allow the individual to understand and respond to them’ [37], suggesting that the doctors should consider his response before administering the drug.
• Brooke LJ said that ‘it may not always be appropriate to delay treatment once the [second doctor's] certificate has been given’ [33].
• Consider the general discretion to reconsider an administrative decision (see 4.10), such as the decision here to give a patient an anti-psychotic drug against his will. Does it make more sense for the patient to have the opportunity to respond to reasons before the drug is administered?
• What is the dominant process value justifying the duty to give reasons in Wooder? Might the concern of showing respect to the person affected by the decision indicate that, other things being equal, the patient should be told of the reasons for the decision before the drug is administered?
• Could you argue that the case for giving reasons before administering the drug rather than after is strengthened by the nature of the decision i.e. to give the patient a drug intended to affect his behaviour?
• Even if it is accepted that in general reasons ought to be given before the drug is administered, would there be any exceptions? Might it be that, if the resulting delay would pose a danger (a process danger) to the patient or to others, this general rule ought to be displaced and reasons only given afterwards?