header-logo header-logo

18 November 2011 / Andrew Parsons
Issue: 7490 / Categories: Features , Public , Mental health
printer mail-detail

In the balance?

Andrew Parsons deliberates over the court’s approach to the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment

Although it has been known for some time that an application may be made to the court of protection to authorise the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from a patient in a vegetative state (VS) a recent case, Re M [2011] EWHC 2443 (Fam), [2011] All ER (D) 142 (Sep) has looked at the rather more difficult question of when this should be withdrawn from a patient whose condition was not so acute as to amount to a VS, albeit the quality of life was limited. It was argued that there is a difference between VS and minimally conscious state (MCS) cases. In VS cases, the balance falls in one direction in favour of withdrawal. In MCS cases, it depends on the facts, and, in assessing best interests, the court must follow a balance sheet approach.

Irreparable brain damage

The patient, M, fell into a coma in 2003 aged 43 as a result of viral encephalitis which caused extensive and

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll