N, Re

N, Re

It is in Mrs. N’s best interests for CANH to be withdrawn, given her minimally conscious state, lack of meaningful awareness, the intrusive and futile nature of the treatment, and her clearly established past wishes and values as credibly conveyed by her family. The presumption in favour of preserving life is rebutted in these circumstances.

Parties
Applicant: M; 1st Respondent: Mrs. N (By her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor); 2nd Respondent: Bury Clinical Commissioning Group; 3rd Respondent: A Care Provider
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 / Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Declaration granted; withdrawal of CANH from Mrs. N is lawful and in her best interests.
Legal Topics
Withdrawal of Life Sustaining Treatment, Best Interests, Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (canh), Minimally Conscious State (mcs), Vegetative State (vs), Personal Autonomy, Sanctity of Life
Mental Capacity Law Medical Law Human Rights Withdrawal of Life Sustaining Treatment Best Interests Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (canh) Minimally Conscious State (mcs) Vegetative State (vs) +2 more

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Applicant

Mrs. N (By her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor)

1st Respondent

Bury Clinical Commissioning Group

2nd Respondent

A Care Provider

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 / Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is in Mrs. N’s best interests to continue to receive life-sustaining treatment by means of Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (CANH) via PEG tube
  2. 2 Whether Mrs. N is in a Vegetative State or Minimally Conscious State and the legal consequences thereof
  3. 3 How Mrs. N’s past wishes, feelings, beliefs, and values should be weighed in the best interests analysis

Ratio Decidendi

It is in Mrs. N’s best interests for CANH to be withdrawn, given her minimally conscious state, lack of meaningful awareness, the intrusive and futile nature of the treatment, and her clearly established past wishes and values as credibly conveyed by her family. The presumption in favour of preserving life is rebutted in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Declaration granted; withdrawal of CANH from Mrs. N is lawful and in her best interests.

Orders

  • Mrs. N to continue to receive CANH until transfer to a suitable care home or hospice.
  • Second Respondent (CCG) to arrange transfer and prepare a care plan for withdrawal of CANH, including palliative measures.