A Clinical Commissioning Group v AF & Ors
It would be categorically contrary to AF’s interests for him to be set on the path that will lead to his inevitable death from starvation; AF’s past statements do not apply to his current condition, and his present life, though diminished, has intrinsic quality and pleasure.
- Parties
- Applicant: A Clinical Commissioning Group; 1st Respondent: AF (by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor); 2nd Respondent: SJ; 3rd Respondent: A GP; 4th Respondent: A Local Authority
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 27 March 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Court of Protection / Judgment
- Outcome
- Application for withdrawal of CANH refused; CANH to continue.
- Legal Topics
- Best Interests, Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (canh), Withdrawal of Life Sustaining Treatment, Autonomy, Preservation of Life
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
A Clinical Commissioning Group
Applicant
AF (by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor)
1st Respondent
SJ
2nd Respondent
A GP
3rd Respondent
A Local Authority
4th Respondent
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Does AF have capacity to decide on continuation of CANH?
- 2 Is it in AF's best interests to continue CANH?
Ratio Decidendi
It would be categorically contrary to AF’s interests for him to be set on the path that will lead to his inevitable death from starvation; AF’s past statements do not apply to his current condition, and his present life, though diminished, has intrinsic quality and pleasure.
Court Disposition
Application for withdrawal of CANH refused; CANH to continue.
Orders
- It is in AF’s best interests for CANH to continue.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment