Court rules on life support withdrawal for comatose patient

12 Feb 2025Court Report

Court of Protection authorises withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for a patient in a prolonged disorder of consciousness

Introduction

The Court of Protection was faced with a heart-wrenching decision in the case involving King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and XY, a 54-year-old woman who suffered a catastrophic cardiac arrest, leaving her in a prolonged disorder of consciousness. The court had to determine whether it was in XY's best interests to continue life-sustaining treatment.

Background

XY, a beloved member of her family and community, experienced a cardiac arrest on 6th May 2024. Despite the swift response of emergency services, the prolonged lack of oxygen resulted in severe brain damage. XY has since been in intensive care, with no significant signs of recovery.

The Application

The King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust sought declarations that XY lacked the capacity to make decisions regarding her treatment and that discontinuing life-sustaining therapy was lawful and in her best interests. The Official Solicitor, representing XY, supported the application, while XY's daughter, XZ, opposed it, hoping for her mother's recovery.

Family's Perspective

XY's family and friends provided heartfelt testimony, describing her as a vibrant and loving individual. They believed they observed signs of responsiveness, such as XY following them with her eyes and squeezing their hands. They argued that more time was needed for potential recovery, expressing faith in a miracle.

Medical Evidence

Medical experts unanimously agreed that XY's condition was irreversible. Dr A, Dr Wade, and Dr Bell provided evidence that XY's movements were reflexive and not indicative of consciousness. The experts concluded that XY's brain damage was extensive, with no prospect of improvement.

Legal Framework

The court applied the principles from the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and relevant case law, focusing on XY's best interests. The presumption in favour of life was considered, but the court recognised that this could be rebutted by evidence of futility in continued treatment.

Conclusion

MRS JUSTICE ARBUTHNOT concluded that it was in XY's best interests to withdraw life-sustaining treatment. The court found that XY had no awareness of her surroundings and that continued treatment offered no prospect of recovery. The decision was made with deep respect for the family's views and the sanctity of life.