English court in landmark right-to-die ruling

An English judge ruled on Wednesday that a brain-damaged, minimally conscious woman should not be allowed to die, in a landmark case about the right to life-supporting treatment.

High judge Scott Baker said it was the first time an English court had been asked to consider whether such treatment should be withdrawn from a patient who was not in a persistent vegetative state but was minimally conscious.

The relatives of the patient, referred to only as M, had argued that she would not have wanted to live in her current condition and applied to the court asking for her food and water to be withdrawn.

Their lawyers argued that, eight years after suffering profound from viral encephalitis, she had shown no evidence of improvement.

The 52-year-old, who lives in a care home in northern England, is in a minimally -- just above a persistent vegetative state.

The for M's relatives said she was unable to consistently communicate or interact with her environment or with others, could not care for herself and suffered pain, distress and discomfort.

But a court-appointed lawyer representing the patient had argued against the relatives' application, saying that she was "otherwise clinically stable".

The local health authority also opposed the move.

In his ruling, Baker said: "The factor which does carry substantial weight, in my , is the preservation of life."

"I find that she does have some positive experiences and importantly that there is a reasonable prospect that those experiences can be extended by a planned programme of increased stimulation," he added.

The judge said all parties agreed that an existing "do not resuscitate" order should continue.

Law firm Irwin Mitchell, which represented M's relatives, said they were "deeply disappointed" but it was "very important" in clarifying that the High Court did have the power to decide on treatment for minimally conscious patients.

They added that the past eight years had been "heartbreaking" for M's family.

"They love her dearly and want only what is best for her, and it has been desperately difficult for them to make this application to court for treatment to be withdrawn," they said.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Court won't stop hormone replacement lawsuits

Oct 12, 2010

(AP) -- The Supreme Court won't reconsider a decision to reinstate more than 100 lawsuits filed by women who claimed that hormone replacement therapy caused breast cancer.

Court Denies Vonage Bid for Patent Case Retrial

May 04, 2007

A U.S. appeals court denies a request by Internet phone company Vonage Holdings that it order a retrial in the patent infringement case brought against it by Verizon Communications.

Recommended for you

What are the chances that your dad isn't your dad?

Apr 16, 2014

How confident are you that the man you call dad is really your biological father? If you believe some of the most commonly-quoted figures, you could be forgiven for not being very confident at all. But how ...

New technology that is revealing the science of chewing

Apr 15, 2014

CSIRO's 3D mastication modelling, demonstrated for the first time in Melbourne today, is starting to provide researchers with new understanding of how to reduce salt, sugar and fat in food products, as well ...

After skin cancer, removable model replaces real ear

Apr 11, 2014

(HealthDay)—During his 10-year struggle with basal cell carcinoma, Henry Fiorentini emerged minus his right ear, and minus the hearing that goes with it. The good news: Today, the 56-year-old IT programmer ...

Italy scraps ban on donor-assisted reproduction

Apr 09, 2014

Italy's Constitutional Court on Wednesday struck down a Catholic Church-backed ban against assisted reproduction with sperm or egg donors that has forced thousands of sterile couples to seek help abroad.

User comments