header-logo header-logo

Clarity on life support

28 September 2017
Issue: 7763 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Life support treatment can be withdrawn from people suffering from debilitating diseases as long as relatives and doctors agree and medical guidelines are followed, the Court of Protection has ruled in a landmark judgment.

Delivering his judgment in M (by her litigation friend, Mrs B) v A Hospital [2017] EWCOP 19, Mr Justice Peter Jackson held that it had not been a legal requirement for the decision to withdraw life support to have been taken by the court.

He said it was clear that ‘the court is not the source of lawfulness: it identifies whether treatment is or is not lawful, but it cannot make unlawful treatment lawful, or vice versa’.

The requirements of the law, set out by the Mental Capacity Act 2005, were to act in the patient’s ‘best interests’, Jackson J said. While there is a strong presumption that it is in a person’s best interests to stay alive, ‘this is not an absolute, and there are cases where it will not be in the patient’s interests to receive life-sustaining treatment,’ he said. He referred to Lady Hale’s guidance in Aintree v James [2013] UKSC 6 that decision-makers must put themselves in the place of the individual patient and ask what their attitude to the treatment would be.

M, a 50-year-old woman, suffered from Huntington’s disease, an incurable neurological condition, and had been bedridden with little awareness of her surroundings.Her family applied for permission for doctors to withdraw treatment.

Caroline Barrett, solicitor at Irwin Mitchell, who acted for the family, said the judgment had ‘great legal significance’ and would ‘allow those suffering with terrible diseases such as Huntington’s, or other terminal or life limiting illnesses, to pass away with dignity, easing the suffering and pain for all involved’.

It is also one of the first reported cases where the court has appointed a family member, M’s mother, rather than the Official Solicitor, as ‘litigation friend’ to act on behalf of the patient.

Barrett said: ‘The judge specifically said that just because the mother was asking for withdrawal of treatment, this did not make her an unsuitable litigation friend.’

Issue: 7763 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll