Article Text
PDFWithdrawing and withholding artificial nutrition and hydration
The minimally conscious state and treatment withdrawal: W v M
Abstract
This short comment on the Court of Protection decision in W v M draws attention to the primacy the judge gave to the preservation of life and discusses the relative lack of weight accorded to M's previously expressed views.
- Living Wills/Advance Directives
- Law
- Competence/incompetence
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Linked Articles
- The concise argument
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Why I wrote my advance decision to refuse life-prolonging treatment: and why the law on sanctity of life remains problematic
- Withdrawing artificial nutrition and hydration from minimally conscious and vegetative patients: family perspectives
- Withdrawing clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) in patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness: is there still a role for the courts?
- A matter of life and death
- A matter of life and death: controversy at the interface between clinical and legal decision-making in prolonged disorders of consciousness
- Causes and consequences of delays in treatment-withdrawal from PVS patients: a case study of Cumbria NHS Clinical Commissioning Group v Miss S and Ors [2016] EWCOP 32
- Court applications for withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration from patients in a permanent vegetative state: family experiences
- Withdrawing and withholding artificial nutrition and hydration from patients in a minimally conscious state: Re: M and its repercussions
- Procedure, practice and legal requirements: a commentary on ‘Why I wrote my advance decision’
- The weight attributed to patient values in determining best interests