header-logo header-logo

Mental health—Persons who lack capacity—Withdrawal of life sustaining treatment

06 October 2011
Issue: 7484 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Re M [2011] EWHC 2443 (Fam), [2011] All ER (D) 142 (Sep)

Court of Protection, Scott Baker LJ, 28 Sep 2011

The Court of Protection has ruled that withdrawing artificial nutrition and hydration from a person in a minimally conscious state was not, in the circumstances, in that person’s best interests; the court also made general observations for future cases.

Vikram Sachdeva and Victoria Butler-Cole (instructed by Irwin Mitchell) for W. Caroline Harry Thomas QC and Katherine Apps (instructed by the Official Solicitor) for M. Bridget Dolan (instructed by Beachcroft LLP) for the Primary Care Trust.

The proceedings concerned M. In 2003, aged 43, she fell into a coma and was found to be suffering viral encephalitis which left her with extensive and irreparable brain damage. From that time she remained in a minimally conscious state (MCS), which was slightly higher than a permanent vegetative state (VS). Her status had been assessed by methods called “sensory modality assessment and rehabilitation technique” (SMART) and “Wessex head injury

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll