Ethics briefing

Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (10):725-726 (2018)

The Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Y that there is no requirement to seek the approval of the Court of Protection in decisions to withdraw clinically assisted nutrition and hydration from patients in a prolonged disorder of consciousness.1 Mr Y was 52-year-old man who suffered a cardiac arrest after a myocardial infarction as a result of coronary artery disease. It was not possible to resuscitate him for well over 10 min, resulting in severe cerebral hypoxia which caused extensive brain damage. Mr Y’s family and the NHS Trust treating him agreed that Mr Y would not want to be kept alive through the provision of CANH given his poor prognosis. They sought a declaration that it was not mandatory for applications of withdrawal of CANH to come before the court, which was granted by Mrs Justice O’Farrell in the first instance.2 Permission was granted for the appeal to ‘leapfrog’ the Court of Appeal and to proceed to the Supreme Court for consideration. In the interim, Mr Y died after contracting acute respiratory sepsis, but the Supreme Court determined that the appeal should go ahead in light of the general importance of the issues raised. In delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court on 30 July 2018, Lady Justice Black rejected the historical distinction that had been drawn between patients in PDOC and non-PDOC patients, in a way that had justified judicial involvement for patients in PDOC but not for others.3 She was clear that the correct approach to all cases involving CANH was to make a decision based on what was in the best interests of the patient. She further outlined that: > The documentation supplied to us shows that the difficulty that there is in assessing the patient and in …
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1136/medethics-2018-105134
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 43,952
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Ethics Briefings.S. Brannan, E. Chrispin, M. Davies, V. English, R. Mussell & J. C. Sheather - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (11):719-720.
Business and the Roberts Court.Jonathan H. Adler (ed.) - 2016 - Oxford University Press USA.
Burdens of ANH Outweigh Benefits in the Minimally Conscious State.W. Glannon - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (9):551-552.


Added to PP index

Total views
8 ( #828,477 of 2,266,532 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #593,615 of 2,266,532 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes

Sign in to use this feature