W Healthcare NHS Trust v KH

W Healthcare NHS Trust v KH

There was no sufficiently clear and applicable advance directive from KH refusing artificial feeding in these circumstances. The best interests test did not justify withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, as KH was not in a persistent vegetative state and her condition was not shown to be intolerable. The law requires a high threshold for withdrawal of basic sustenance, and the judge's decision to permit re-insertion of the PEG tube was correct.

Parties
Claimant/first Respondent: W Healthcare NHS Trust; Second Respondent: KH (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor); First Defendant/second Respondent: Mr H; Second Defendant/appellant: PH
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (family/medical) / Appeal From High Court Family Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Withdrawal of Life Sustaining Treatment, Advance Directives, Best Interests Test, Mental Incapacity, Right to Life
Medical Law Family Law Human Rights Withdrawal of Life Sustaining Treatment Advance Directives Best Interests Test Mental Incapacity Right to Life

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W Healthcare NHS Trust

Claimant/first Respondent

KH (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor)

Second Respondent

Mr H

First Defendant/second Respondent

PH

Second Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (family/medical) / Appeal From High Court Family Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should permit re-insertion of a PEG tube to provide nutrition to an incapacitated patient against the unanimous wishes of her family
  2. 2 Whether there was a valid and applicable advance directive refusing such treatment
  3. 3 Whether continued artificial feeding is in the patient's best interests

Ratio Decidendi

There was no sufficiently clear and applicable advance directive from KH refusing artificial feeding in these circumstances. The best interests test did not justify withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, as KH was not in a persistent vegetative state and her condition was not shown to be intolerable. The law requires a high threshold for withdrawal of basic sustenance, and the judge's decision to permit re-insertion of the PEG tube was correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with identification restrictions
  • Transcript of judgment to be supplied at public expense to the family