TY - JOUR T1 - Why the BMA guidance on CANH is dangerous JF - Journal of Medical Ethics JO - J Med Ethics SP - 690 LP - 690 DO - 10.1136/medethics-2019-105648 VL - 45 IS - 10 AU - Rosemarie Anthony-Pillai Y1 - 2019/10/01 UR - http://jme.bmj.com/content/45/10/690.abstract N2 - This personal view draws attention to the lack of regard, given by the BMA in its new guidance, to the symptomatic benefit of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) in patients who are not imminently dying. This article aims to identify how ignoring symptomatic benefit is a serious oversight and cause for concern given that this document, endorsed by the General Medical Council (GMC) and courts, is created with the purpose of providing a framework for best interests decision-making.The new BMA guidance on CANH, which is endorsed by the GMC,1 follows up on the Supreme Court case of An NHS Trust v Y,2 that any removal of CANH from a patient in prolonged disorder of consciousness (PDOC) no longer requires the approval of the court unless there is disagreement or the decision is finely balanced. The decision in … ER -