Table 3

Comparison of public attitudes to legal case judgements

Legal outcomePublic attitudes from survey
Charlie GardWithdraw: Justice Francis ruled that continuation of life would not be in Charlie’s best interests.Morally correct treatment choice (Possible Awareness case): Withdraw. 52% stated obligation to withdraw treatment. 39% stated permissible to withdraw or continue. 8% stated must continue.
If parents wanted treatment to be continued: Divided. 48% believed parents should not be allowed to demand continued treatment. 42% agreed parents should be allowed to demand that treatment continue.
Alfie EvansWithdraw: ruled that it was unlawful to give treatment.Morally correct choice (Unaware case): Withdraw. 54% stated obligation to stop treatment. 41% stated permissible to withdraw or continue. 5% stated must continue.
If parents wanted treatment to be continued: Withdraw. 52% believed parents should not be allowed to demand continued treatment. 39% agreed parents should be allowed to demand that treatment continue.
Baby MBContinue: maintain ventilation but withhold invasive procedures that might cause unnecessary additional distress.Morally correct treatment choice (Locked In Case): Continue. 41% stated obligation to continue treatment. 43% stated permissible to withdraw or continue.
If parents wanted treatment to be continued: Continue. 67% agreed parents should be allowed to demand continued treatment.
Charlotte WyattContinue: although initially future life-sustaining treatment was withheld, Charlotte improved to the level described in the survey case scenario. It was then judged that mechanical ventilation should be provided in the event of future need.Morally correct treatment choice (Significant Burden Case): Divided. 38% stated obligation to provide life-sustaining treatment if needed. 37% stated permissible to provide or not. 25% stated obliged to withhold treatment.
If parents wanted treatment to be continued: Continue. 59% agreed parents should be allowed to continue treatment.