Statistics from Altmetric.com
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.
The papers in this special issue consider important legal, ethical, clinical and practical implications of decisions to withdraw clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) from patients who are either in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) or a minimally conscious state (MCS). They grapple with a range of difficult questions that decisions of this kind raise. For a start, what are PVS and MCS and is it possible to categorise (or categorise definitively) a patient as falling within one rather than another category? Even if this is possible, is it useful (clinically) or necessary (legally) to do so? What is the law that governs how we should treat such patients? What is meant by the term ‘best interests’ in the context of withdrawal of CANH? And who should be charged with making the decision about withdrawing this treatment?
These are challenging questions and this special edition of the journal draws on interdisciplinary expertise from leading scholars and practitioners in their field to shed light on how they should be answered. The authors include an experienced Court of Protection judge who has helped shape the law in this field, a practising lawyer, a philosopher, ethicists, sociologists and clinicians including those working in the field of rehabilitation and treatment of patients in PVS or MCS.
What does the law require?
A threshold question is whether court approval is required when a treating team and the patient’s family wish to withdraw CANH. This is a simple question and should have a simple answer. Yet, as is evident in the papers that follow, there are different views on this. The special edition contains the transcript of the Oxford Shrieval Lecture delivered by Mr Justice Baker in 2016 entitled ‘A matter of life and death’. Justice Baker has presided over cases of this kind and is of the view that the court …
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- 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: controversy at the interface between clinical and legal decision-making in prolonged disorders of consciousness
- Can ‘Best Interests’ derail the trolley? Examining withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration in patients in the permanent vegetative state
- When ‘Sanctity of Life’ and ‘Self-Determination’ clash: Briggs versus Briggs  EWCOP 53 – implications for policy and practice
- ‘In a twilight world’? Judging the value of life for the minimally conscious patient
- Procedure, practice and legal requirements: a commentary on ‘Why I wrote my advance decision’
- Withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration decisions in patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness: best interests of the patients and advance directives are the keys
- Ethics briefing
- Why I wrote my advance decision to refuse life-prolonging treatment: and why the law on sanctity of life remains problematic
- Withdrawing life-sustaining treatment: a stock-take of the legal and ethical position