Pallium

Kulasekharam

The hands that serve are better
than the lips that pray.
October 2017
M T W T F S S
« Sep    
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

Court decision not necessary to withdraw artificial life support: UK Court of Protection

  • Home
  • News on PK
  • Court decision not necessary to withdraw artificial life support: UK Court of Protection

The UK Court of Protection has clarified that decisions to withdraw life support treatment to patients in Permanent Vegetative State (PVS) or Minimally Conscious State (MCS) need not always be taken with judicial approval. It was held that if the decision was taken on agreement between doctors and family members in accordance with the professional guidelines, Court intervention was not a mandatory requirement. Among the reasons:

  • Treatment decisions up to and including the withholding and withdrawal of life-support are taken by clinicians and families working together in accordance with recognised good practice. All such decision cannot be subject of external supervision;
  • The decisions involving withdrawal of life supporting system are not so different from other serious medical treatment decisions to justify a different approach;
  • Cost and time of litigation process is a deterrent to the best interests of the patient. The Court cited the case at hand as an example where the patient had to be in life support for one year awaiting judicial decisions, despite the fact that family and doctors firmly held that continuation of treatment was not in her best interest; and
  • The grave consequence and risk of error in an advance decision on agreement by family and doctors, and the decision rendered by the court are not so different.

Read more at: Court Proceedings Are Not Necessary For Withdrawing Life Support –UK Court Of Protection

This judgement could be of some significance to us. In the absence of any law on the subject in the country, we understand that a British court’s decision may carry some influence over the decisions of the judiciary in India, while deciding future cases including review petitions, if any.

Source: Pallium Kulasekharam

About

View all posts by