Judge rejects right-to-die plea over woman who feels pain

12 April 2012

A High Court judge today made the historic decision to order that a brain-damaged woman should not be allowed to die.

Mr Justice Baker said that the preservation of life was one of the fundamental principles of the law.

It is the first time that a judge has had to make a right-to-die decision of whether life support treatment should be withdrawn in these circumstances.

The woman - known only as M who is now 52 and is in a nursing home in the North - is not in a persistent vegetative state but is "minimally conscious".

She collapsed in February 2003 before a skiing holiday and was diagnosed as suffering from viral encephalitis, an inflammation of the brain.

Her family applied to the High Court to have her nutrition and hydration withheld, allowing her to die.
They have spoken of M's "awful experience" and say that before she fell ill she made clear her desire never to be kept alive and totally dependent on others. But they were opposed in court by the local heath authority representing M's carers who have a more "positive" view of her life experience.

The application was also opposed by a lawyer appointed by the High Court to represent M. In his 43,000-word judgment handed down today the judge said that in the past the law would have given priority to M's comments to her family.

But under the 2005 Mental Capacity Act her views are now considered only to be "informal" and as a result "not binding". "The factor which does carry substantial weight, in my judgment, is the preservation of life," said the judge. "Although not an absolute rule, the law regards the preservation of life as a fundamental principle."

The judge stressed that all possible steps must be taken to prolong life and the best interests of the patient "would normally require such steps to be taken". He concluded: "M does experience pain and discomfort and her disability severely restricts what she can do.

"Having considered all the evidence however I find that she does have some positive experiences and importantly that there is a reasonable prospect that those experiences can be extended by a planned programme of increased stimulation.

"Having weighed up all the relevant facts I conclude that it is not in M's best interests for artificial nutrition and hydration to be withdrawn and I therefore refuse the application."

But the judge said that future decisions on M's treatment should be left to the doctors caring for her in consultation with M's family. They should work together on a revised care plan.

In a 10-day hearing, M's sister, B, and her partner S gave evidence with S, in particular, speaking movingly about her and the contrast between her previous life and her current plight.

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in