top of page

Court approval no longer required in right-to-die cases

  • Callum Clynes
  • Sep 22, 2017
  • 2 min read

Landmark ruling from High Court Judge, Mr Justice Peter Jackson, explained that legal permission from the courts is no longer required before life-support treatment is withdrawn from patients with severe debilitating illnesses in England and Wales.

The ruling is a way to tackle long and lengthy cases being brought to court that are in need of judicial authorisation. It has been decided that they could be more efficiently decided by doctors in some instances, as long as all the preliminary requirements are met.

In order for a right-to-die case to be decided without consultation of the courts, the relatives of the patient need to be in agreement with the doctors, in addition to the medical guidelines being adhered to.

"M", was a woman who suffered from Huntington's disease, a genetic condition for which there is no cure.

"Huntington's disease is an inherited condition that damages certain nerve cells in the brain. This brain damage gets progressively worse over time and can affect movement, cognition (perception, awareness, thinking, judgement) and behaviour." (NHS)

Jackson said: “On the facts of this case, I do not consider it to have been a legal requirement for the decision to withdraw CANH to have been taken by the court.”

“Indeed, the present case stands as an example, in that M received continued CANH that neither her doctors nor her family thought was in her best interests for almost a year until a court decision was eventually sought.”

It is a clear development in the direction to better end-of-life care, which was echoed by Compassion in Dying in their article.

Jackson's ruling affects those who are deemed to be in a persistent vegetative or minimally conscious state. Jackson noted that in the event of such cases, where both doctors and all family members agree, the estimated legal costs incurred is usually around £30,000.

There is a clear debate to be had on this topic, both holding equally compelling arguments on each side.

Instigating the debate is that of the Official Solicitor. He/she is a government officer, appointed to act for the patient in such cases, who argued that "every case where withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration is requested should come before the court".

 
 
 

Comentarios

bottom of page