The CCG were applying to the court for a personal welfare order that it was not in the best interests of the Patient, who was in a permanent vegetative state, for CANH to be continued. The order was granted.
This was a claim for a declaration under CPR Part 8 that it is not mandatory to bring before the Court the withdrawal of Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration ("CANH") from a patient who has a prolonged disorder of consciousness in circumstances where the clinical team and the patient's family are agreed that it is not in the patient's best interests that he continues to receive that treatment, and that no civil or criminal liability will result if CANH is withdrawn. The declaration was made in relation to this case only.
The Patient's son (with the support of the rest of the family) was seeking a declaration that it was not in his mother’s best interests that CANH should be continued, with the inevitable and foreseeable consequence that she would shortly thereafter die. The court concluded that it was not in her best interests; it followed that the discontinuance of the CANH treatment was therefore lawful.
The Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust was seeking a declaration that it was in the Patient’s (who is in a Minimally Conscious State (MCS)) best interests to receive clinical treatment including clinically assisted artificial nutrition and hydration (CANH). The application was refused.
This judgment considered whether legal proceedings were necessary when there was agreement between the Patient's family and her clinicians that CANH was no longer in her best interests. The judge concluded that they were not.
An application by a medical Trust seeking a declaration that it would be in a patient's best interests not to undergo treatment but rather to be provided with palliative care only.
The patient, R, suffers from chronic paranoid schizophrenia and been diagnosed with an incurable brain tumour. It was uncontested that he lacks capacity to conduct the proceedings or to make medical decisions about the medical treatment for his brain tumour by reason of the disturbance in the function of his mind or brain.
In this judgment, Baker J sets out the relevant principles from the MCA 2005 and the Code of Practice and, following the decision in Aintree, agrees to make the declaration as requested.
Read the full judgment on Bailii.
Hayden J heard the application for the continuation of a reporting restriction order (RRO) when M died following the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment by means of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration. The application was refused, the judge saying that "the balance here weighs more heavily in favour of freedom of expression".
S was found to be in a permanent vegetative state without any awareness of herself or the world around her.
This case came before Hayden J as a final hearing to determine what was in S’s best interests. The family were asking for a declaration that it was no longer in S’s best interests to continue to receive artificial nutrition and hydration, and that it was lawful and in her best interests for artificial nutrition and hydration to be withdrawn. After hearing from medical experts that S would be very unlikely to recover, Hayden J agreed to make the declarations sought by the family.
This decision builds upon the previous decisions by Hayden J in N v N  EWCOP 706 and Re O (Withdrawal of Medical Treatment)  EWCOP 24.
Case summaries & Editor's comments on every Court of Protection case & other relevant decisions with links to the full judgment where available.
Get the latest cases & news delivered to your inbox with our free email updates.