AB, Re (ADRT: Validity and Applicability) [2025] EWCOP 20 (T3)

Judgment concerning the validity of an Advance Decision to Refuse Treatment (ADRT)

AB suffered brain damage following a heart attack and was now suffering a Prolonged Disorder of Consciousness and receiving CANH to keep him alive. He had apparently signed a living will which stated he would refuse such treatment but there was concern among his family about the validity of the document and AB's fiancé was attempting to restrict their access to see him. Poole J identifies [9] there are three questions to answer: is the ADRT a genuine document made of AB's own free will?; is it valid?; And does it apply to AB's current or future treatment? He also notes at [10] that in this judgment he will only consider the second and third questions with the first to be considered at a later date if necessary because of the evidence required. 

After reviewing the medical evidence and the ADRT itself, Poole J concludes it is valid and applicable. He then goes to consider the family's claims the document was fraudulent. He decides, for several reasons, the claims "merit proper, but proportionate, consideration" by the court but stressed the family needs to bring any claims quickly as [53.7]

"The need to make a prompt application when the validity, admissibility or authenticity of an ADRT are in doubt or dispute is clear: administering a treatment to a person who has refused it through an authentic, valid and applicable ADRT is as unlawful as is providing treatment to a person with capacity who refuses consent to it."

He also emphasises that best interest considerations should continue alongside any challenge to the ADRT. 

Read the judgment on Bailii