Article Text

other Versions

PDF
Best interests and the sanctity of life after W v M
  1. Alexandra Mullock
  1. Correspondence to Dr Alexandra Mullock, Law School, Centre for Social and Ethical Policy, University of Manchester, Williamson Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK; alexandra.mullock{at}manchester.ac.uk

Abstract

The case of W v M and Others, in which the court rejected an application to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration from a woman in a minimally conscious state, raises a number of profoundly important medico-legal issues. This article questions whether the requirement to respect the autonomy of incompetent patients, under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, is being unjustifiably disregarded in order to prioritise the sanctity of life. When patients have made informal statements of wishes and views, which clearly—if not precisely—apply to their present situation, judges should not feel free to usurp such expressions of autonomy unless there are compelling reasons for so doing.

  • Autonomy
  • Capacity
  • Competence/incompetence
  • Right to Refuse Treatment

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles