It is never lawful or ethical to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness
Other content recommended for you
- Withdrawing life-sustaining treatment: a stock-take of the legal and ethical position
- Withdrawing clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) in patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness: is there still a role for the courts?
- When ‘Sanctity of Life’ and ‘Self-Determination’ clash: Briggs versus Briggs  EWCOP 53 – implications for policy and practice
- Serial measurement of Wessex Head Injury Matrix in the diagnosis of patients in vegetative and minimally conscious states: a cohort analysis
- 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
- Withdrawing treatment from patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness: the wrong answer is what the wrong question begets
- Back to the bedside? Making clinical decisions in patients with prolonged unconsciousness
- Withdrawing treatment from patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness: the presumption in favour of the maintenance of life is legally robust
- Deal with the real, not the notional patient, and don’t ignore important uncertainties
Jump to comment:
Foster considers that is it not ethically nor lawfully acceptable to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from patients with Permanent Disorder of Consciousness(1) (PDOC). Though we agree the proposition has strong grounds to be made, we conclude that stating this to be the case “under any circumstances” may be oversimplifying the issue. We look at the case of W v M 2011 where withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment was denied and compare it to the cases of Airedale NHS Trust v Bland 1993 and Briggs v Briggs 2016 in which it was deemed legal to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from PDOC patients on the grounds of best interests. We also discuss some points in which Beauchamp and Childress’s ethical principles regarding ‘non-maleficience’ and ‘respect for autonomy’ do not align with Foster’s view, such as advanced directives and treatment side effects.
Withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment is unlawful
Foster makes a strong argument regarding the ambiguity surrounding the issues of removing life-sustaining treatment. Cases such as W v M 2011(2) exemplify how this uncertainty has affected the legal stance on this issue. M had suffered from a non-traumatic brain injury resulting in a ‘minimally conscious state’ (MCS), with intermittent periods of awareness. Though M was still left with the ability to have joyful experiences, she also had to endure periods of significant pain. Previously, M had expressed her wishes to never be wholly dependent o...Show More