The Supreme Court ruling against Elaine McDonald's request to have a night-time carer shocked the sector and the country. Peter Grose considers if this decision marks the end of the holy trinity of privacy, dignity and choice that has been so heavily pushed by central Government and local authorities.

In a time of unprecedented local authority cost cutting, social care has seen its own ‘Desert Spring'. Care home providers, normally very reluctant to litigate against their local authorities, have banded together in unprecedented numbers to commence court proceedings to challenge local authority cuts to care home fees.

Local authorities have not just targeted care home providers, they have also re-examined their financial contribution to people's care in their own homes. Most people understand that local authorities do need to be financially prudent in these straightened times but there was, nevertheless, outrage when the press reported the Supreme Court decision in McDonald v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea at the start of July. The reporting gave the impression that the Royal Borough had been authorised by the court to allow Ms McDonald to lie in her own urine all night, simply to save costs. As ever, the answer is not quite as clear as the media comment would lead us to believe.