Briggs v Briggs & Ors [2016] EWCOP 53

The Patient was in a minimally conscious state following a road accident in 2015. He was being kept alive by clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH). He had not made an advance decision nor was there a power of attorney in place. His family wanted him to move to a hospice where he would receive palliative care, his CANH treatment would not be continued and as a result he would die. Mr Justice Charles ruled that it was not in the Patient's best interests for the court to give consent to his life sustaining treatment by CANH and that therefore it would be lawful for the clinical practitioners to withold or withdraw it.

Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii

Also read the related judgment where Mr Justice Charles ruled that applications relating to CANH can be brought under s21 MCA and thus the Patient's wife was eligible for non means tested funding through legal aid.