PC, Re

PC, Re

There was no material procedural or substantive error in the judge's refusal to adjourn for further neurological evidence. The assessments of PC's awareness and pain were thorough, multidisciplinary, and compliant with the PDOC Guidance. Professor Wade's evolving view on pain did not undermine the diagnosis or the best interests analysis. The judge correctly applied the best interests test, gave appropriate weight to the sanctity of life, and there was no evidence of pleasure or improvement in PC's condition. Permission to appeal is refused on all grounds.

Parties
Appellant: MC; 1st Respondent: NHS North Central London Integrated Care Board; 2nd Respondent: Official Solicitor; 3rd Respondent: Royal Hospital for Neuro-Disability
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (court of Protection) / Application for Permission to Appeal With Rolled Up Hearing
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; original order stands
Legal Topics
Withdrawal of Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (canh), Best Interests, Mental Capacity Act 2005, Palliative Care, Sanctity of Life
Mental Capacity Medical Law Human Rights Withdrawal of Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (canh) Best Interests Mental Capacity Act 2005 Palliative Care Sanctity of 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MC

Appellant

NHS North Central London Integrated Care Board

1st Respondent

Official Solicitor

2nd Respondent

Royal Hospital for Neuro-Disability

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (court of Protection) / Application for Permission to Appeal With Rolled Up Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing to adjourn for further neurological evidence regarding PC's awareness and pain
  2. 2 Whether the assessments of PC's awareness and pain complied with the PDOC Guidance
  3. 3 Whether the court failed to respect the sanctity of life and PC's right to life in authorising withdrawal of CANH

Ratio Decidendi

There was no material procedural or substantive error in the judge's refusal to adjourn for further neurological evidence. The assessments of PC's awareness and pain were thorough, multidisciplinary, and compliant with the PDOC Guidance. Professor Wade's evolving view on pain did not undermine the diagnosis or the best interests analysis. The judge correctly applied the best interests test, gave appropriate weight to the sanctity of life, and there was no evidence of pleasure or improvement in PC's condition. Permission to appeal is refused on all grounds.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; original order stands

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused on all grounds
  • Order that it is not in PC’s best interests to continue to receive CANH stands