In this article, we reassess the court's role in the withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration from patients in the permanent vegetative state (PVS), focussing on cases where health-care teams and families agree that such is in the patient's best interest. As well as including a doctrinal analysis, the reassessment draws on empirical data from the families of patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness, on economic data about the costs of the declaratory relief process to the National Health Service (NHS), and on comparative legal data about the comparable procedural requirements in other jurisdictions. We show that, following the decision in the Bland case, the role of the Court of Protection is now restricted to the direct supervision of the PVS diagnosis as a matter of proof. We argue that this is an inappropriate role for the court, and one that sits in some tension with the best interests of patients. The blanket requirement of declaratory relief for all cases is economically expensive for the NHS and thus deprives other NHS patients from health care. We demonstrate that many of the ancillary benefits currently offered by declaratory relief could be achieved by other means. Ultimately, we suggest that reform to the declaratory relief requirement is called for.

There is widespread evidence that those claiming out-of-work benefits experience different types of ‘benefit stigma’ in the UK, with the focus largely falling on conventionally disadvantaged welfare users. In contrast, graduates’ experiences of ‘benefits stigma’ go unnoticed because of their relative advantage within the labour market. Yet, an increase in precarity across the labour market has unsettled graduate transitions and is re-shaping their relationships with out-of-work benefits. Against this backdrop, this article explores how graduates respond to different aspects of ‘benefit stigma’. It posits that challenging stigmatising narratives associated with out-of-benefits – is integral to support graduates furthest away from knowledge-based economy jobs.

This paper examines the role realist evaluation can play in supporting innovative practice in widening participation (WP) activity. Based on the Go Higher West Yorkshire Uni Connect project (formerly the National Collaborative Outreach Programme, or NCOP), a new model of WP provision has been developed to support learners in spatially disadvantaged communities where access to Higher Education is nationally less than average. It offers specific examples of innovative practice developing a locally tailored approach to WP activities based on community contexts. A realist evaluation framework is utilised to iteratively assess WP activity through subsequent development and modification of relevant programme theory. The article contributes to literature through offering a reflexive account of how realist evaluation can be utilised in terms of WP outreach.

This article draws on an evaluation of Go Higher West Yorkshire (GHWY) Uni Connect – an initiative by the Office for Students (OfS) to reduce educational inequalities through collaborative widening participation (WP) outreach across West Yorkshire. It contributes to wider debates on widening participation policy through demonstrating how Higher Education Progression Officers (HEPOs) normalised 'progression' based on community and learners' needs. We deploy realist evaluation to examine the role of HEPOs in a range of educational contexts where young people historically do not progress on to higher education (HE) at the same rates as their peers when GCSE results are taken into account. While there are complexities around the introduction of WP resources in such communities, the article highlights the importance of contextualised WP, and offers a new model of community-focused WP that incorporates learners' needs, educational institutions and the wider community space in which they reside.

No abstract