header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
04 July 2014 / Charles Foster
Issue: 7613 / Categories: Opinion
printer mail-detail

Game of life

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
comment_foster

Advance decisions for incapacitous patients haven’t been let in through the back door, says Charles Foster

What do you do when it’s obvious that an incapacitous patient would, had they capacity, refuse life-sustaining treatment? Can it be said that it is nonetheless in their best interests to have the treatment?

No, said Hayden J, in a recent judgment in the Court of Protection: Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v TH and TR [2014] EWCOP 4, [2014] All ER (D) 209 (May).

TH was 52, and in a minimally conscious state. Although there was no definitive determination of the medical facts (that determination was adjourned), the prognosis seemed to be poor. At best, it seemed, there might be a small increase in the level of consciousness—and even that was rather unlikely. He was, and would remain, legally incapacitous.

Should life-sustaining treatment be given?

It is important to translate that question into the language used by Lady Hale in Aintree University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v James [2013] UKSC 67, [2014] 1 All ER 573.

Would

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Birketts—Nathan Evans

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Commercial and technology team in Cambridgestrengthened by partner hire

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Hampshire firm appoints head of new family department

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Firm strengthens securities practice with partner return

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll