PL v Sutton Clinical Commissioning Group & Anor

PL v Sutton Clinical Commissioning Group & Anor

It is not in PL’s best interests to continue CANH, given her clear and repeatedly expressed wishes not to be kept alive in her current condition, the absence of any meaningful quality of life, the lack of prospect for improvement, and the strong, united views of her family. The sanctity of life, while important, is outweighed in this case by PL’s autonomy and dignity as reflected in her prior statements and values.

Parties
Applicant: PL; First Respondent: Sutton Clinical Commissioning Group; Second Respondent: The Royal Borough of Kingston on Thames
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Declaration granted: it is not in PL’s best interests to continue CANH; withdrawal of CANH is lawful.
Legal Topics
Withdrawal of Life Sustaining Treatment, Best Interests, Mental Capacity, Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (canh), Advance Decisions, Sanctity of Life, Dignity, Deprivation of Liberty
Mental Capacity Law Medical Law Human Rights Withdrawal of Life Sustaining Treatment Best Interests Mental Capacity Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (canh) Advance Decisions +3 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PL

Applicant

Sutton Clinical Commissioning Group

First Respondent

The Royal Borough of Kingston on Thames

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is in PL’s best interests for clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) to be continued
  2. 2 Whether PL lacks capacity to make decisions regarding her treatment
  3. 3 What weight should be given to PL’s previously expressed wishes and feelings regarding life-sustaining treatment

Ratio Decidendi

It is not in PL’s best interests to continue CANH, given her clear and repeatedly expressed wishes not to be kept alive in her current condition, the absence of any meaningful quality of life, the lack of prospect for improvement, and the strong, united views of her family. The sanctity of life, while important, is outweighed in this case by PL’s autonomy and dignity as reflected in her prior statements and values.

Court Disposition

Declaration granted: it is not in PL’s best interests to continue CANH; withdrawal of CANH is lawful.

Orders

  • CANH to be lawfully discontinued for PL.
  • PL to be transferred to a specialist palliative care unit for end-of-life care.