Court of Protection backs hospital in right-to-life case

The Court of Protection has ruled that a hospital can withhold treatment from a severely brain-damaged Muslim patient if his condition deteriorates, the BBC reported yesterday.

The man’s family argued that his condition was continuing to improve and their religion required everything to be done to prolong life “until God takes it away”.

Delivering judgment in Re L, Mr Justice Moylan said it would be lawful to withhold treatment as it would not prolong L’s life “in any meaningful way”.

Moylan J said: “It would result in death being characterised by a series of harmful interventions without any realistic prospect of such treatment producing any benefit.”

The case had to be adjourned while doctors reassessed Mr L’s condition, after video evidence appeared to show he was no longer in a persistent vegetative state.

The judge refused the family permission to appeal, but they still can appeal directly to the Court of Appeal.

Julianne Moore (pictured), partner at Pannone, represents L’s family. Moore said L suffered a cardiac arrest on July this year while in hospital, but despite successful attempts to restart his heart, he sustained severe brain damage which left him in a “minimally conscious state”.

However she said he was breathing independently and showing some responses and signs of improvement.

Moore said expert evidence concluded that L’s brain injury was “unlikely to resolve” but a full assessment was needed.

“Two days after his heart attack the clinicians at the hospital placed a Do Not Resuscitate Order in L’s notes without informing or consulting with L’s family,” Moore said.

“L’s family want to ensure that he is given all possible life-saving medical treatment, including resuscitation or ventilation.

“As a family, they want to be fully involved in the decision-making process so proper regard can be given to how L lived his life and what they believe he would have wanted.”

Moore went on: “The hearing has given the family the opportunity to put across their views in terms of what they believe L would have wanted on the grounds of how he lived his life and, in particular, his religious beliefs.

“However, they are devastated at the outcome of the hearing and remain of the view that all attempts should be made to prolong L’s life, particularly in view of his uncertain prognosis,” she said.

“The family was also concerned that there were failures in the care provided to L whilst a patient at the hospital which may have caused or contributed to his condition and we will be advising the family in respect of allegations of medical negligence”.