The P was allowed to return home to die.

Application brought by the CCG, with the support of the P's family, that CANH should be withdrawn from the P. The application was granted.

The applicant LA was seeking an order which would allow them to withdraw CANH from the P. The order was made.

Application regarding the proposed withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) in respect of the 85 year old P. The application was granted.

Application to withdraw CANH from the P, who was in a persistent vegetative state, was allowed.

The P had been in a persistent vegetative state since 2011 after she sustained severe hypoxic brain damage following a cardiac arrest.  During the course of 2017, a number of meetings took place and it was reluctantly agreed by all those concerned that it was in her best interests for the CANH to be withdrawn. The judge had regard to Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v James [2013] UKSC 67 (the purpose of the best interest test is to consider from the patient's point of view, where a patient is suffering from an incurable disability, the question is, in fact, whether they would regard their life as worthwhile or futile) and Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] UKHL 17.

The application was allowed. There was no prospect of recovery and no benefit would be derived from any further investigation or treatment. The judge was satisfied that on a best interests analysis, the evidence was sufficient to say that the P had, prior to her injury, expressed a strong wish in fact not to live a disabled and a dependent life.

Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii

Application by NHS Trust seeking an order confirming that certain forms of treatment were not in P's best interests.

​Applications by the P's husband that it was in her best interests for her to be taken off palliative care until there had been a full investigation and definitive diagnosis of the cause of her deterioration since 2012 and that she be given artificial feeding by way of PNT nutrition until she can eat enough to keep her alive. The applications were refused.

​The court had to decide on end of life treatment for the P who had terminal cancer and was unconscious after suffering a cardiac arrest.

The Applicant was seeking  ​a declaration that, notwithstanding her husband's incapacity and his inability to consent, it was lawful and in his best interests for his sperm to be retrieved and stored prior to his death. The declaration was granted.

The Applicant's husband was involved in a road accident which left him with a catastrophic brain injury. Prior to the accident the couple had started to embark on IVF treatment to provide a brother or sister for their son. The court had to decide whether it was lawful to collect and store the husband's sperm before he died so that the Applicant could go ahead with the treatment.

The court allowed the application. The decisions the court took on the husband's behalf were in his best interests even though his death was imminent. The order declared that it was lawful for a doctor to retrieve his gametes and lawful for those gametes to be stored both before and after his death on the signing of the relevant consents storage and use and that it was lawful for his gametes and any embryos formed from his gametes to be used after his death.

Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii

​Appeal against a decision that it was not necessary to obtain a court order before CANH could be withdrawn. Appeal dismissed.