The UK Court of Protection has handed down a landmark ruling that relieves relatives and doctors of patients with severe life-limiting medical conditions from having to seek court approval to end life sustaining treatment in certain situations.
The applicant Ms. M was represented in court by Ms. B, her litigation friend. Ms. M suffered from Huntington’s, a degenerative nerve disease which had left her in a “minimally conscious state” by the time of the initial hearing in April 2017. Her family and personal physicians had agreed to take her off life sustaining treatment, yet they still needed to attend court in order to obtain approval. They received the approval in June and Ms. M died in August.
The judgement clarified whether or not future applicants in a situation such as Ms. M would need to seek court permission to remove life-sustaining treatment. Judge Peter Jackson stated that the application at the hearing in June was granted because it was no longer in Ms. M’s best interests to keep her alive through life sustaining treatment. He noted that it should not have been necessary for the case to avail of the court in the first place, causing the applicants to spend upwards of £3,000 in legal fees. Judge Jackson stated that there was no statutory obligation requiring a judge to make a decision on the removal of life support, where both the treating doctors and the family are in agreement that sustaining life would no longer be in the patient’s best interests. He also raised concerns that mandatory litigation may deter doctors and families from making true best-interest decisions, in light of the often significant court costs.
As a branch of the High Court, the judgement will stand for all lower courts of England and Wales, however will not extend to people who are still capable of decision making, and only to those who are in a coma or vegetative state for a significant period.
Click here for more on the case, including the judgment.