A Clinical Commissioning Group v AF & Ors [2020] EWCOP 16

​​The court had to decide if it was in the P's best interests to continue to receive CANH. The court ruled that CANH should continue.

The P, a man in his seventies, suffers from a grossly incapacitated mind resulting from a stroke on 5 May 2016. Up to 12 May 2016 the P ate and drank voluntarily. However, on that day he started to refuse food and was saying that he wanted to die. He was however dysphagic and extremely confused. On 19 May 2016 the decision was taken that he did not have capacity and that it was in his interests for him to be fed through a nasogastric tube. Attempts were made to insert the tube, but the P resisted stating that he wished to die. The P was recorded several times as saying he wanted to die but another time he also said he wanted to live. Before his stroke, the P indicated to his daughter that he would not want to be kept alive as a "body in a bed". The P had not made an advance decision prior to his stroke. The daughter wanted CANH to be withdrawn.

The court ruled that CANH should continue. The P's present existence is obviously limited but it is clear that he derives pleasure in a number of respects from physical and emotional stimuli. The court fully considered the P's past wishes. Before the stroke the P did not make a relevant written statement. His oral statements to his family could not be construed as being applicable to anything more than a descent to a vegetative or minimally conscious or equivalent state. They could not be construed as being applied to his present condition. Following the stroke the P's statements were made at a time when he crossed the boundary into incapacity and could not be construed as a rational and considered wish for self-destruction.

Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii