An NHS Trust v Y
There is no legal requirement to apply to the court before withdrawing clinically assisted nutrition and hydration from a patient in a prolonged disorder of consciousness, where doctors and family agree that it is in the patient's best interests.
Facts
Mr Y, aged 52, suffered a cardiac arrest and severe brain damage, and was in a prolonged disorder of consciousness, kept alive by clinically assisted nutrition and hydration. His doctors and his family agreed that it would be in his best interests for the treatment to be withdrawn, which would lead to his death. The trust applied to the High Court for a declaration that it was not necessary to apply to the court for approval in such cases, as had been the practice since Airedale NHS Trust v Bland. Mr Y died before the appeal.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court held that there is no requirement, either at common law or under the European Convention on Human Rights, to apply to the court before withdrawing clinically assisted nutrition and hydration from a patient in a prolonged disorder of consciousness, provided that the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 have been followed, the relevant guidance observed, and there is agreement between the doctors and the family about what is in the patient's best interests. Lady Black said that the Bland requirement had been a matter of practice, not law. If there is disagreement, or the decision is finely balanced, an application to the court should be made.
Related cases on end of life decisions
- Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) [2001] Fam 147
- Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v James [2013] UKSC 67, [2014] AC 591
- Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789
- Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust v Evans [2018] EWHC 308 (Fam)
- Re B (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment) [1981] 1 WLR 1421
- Glass v United Kingdom (2004) 39 EHRR 15
- Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust v Yates [2017] EWHC 972 (Fam)
- Re J (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment) [1991] Fam 33
Studying medical law and ethics? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
