A Collection is a selection of features, articles, comments and opinions on any given theme or topic. It allows you to stay up‑to‑date with what interests you most.
Login here to access your saved articles and followed authors.
We have sent you an email so you can reset your password.
Sorry, we had a problem.
Tags related to this article
Published 20 septiembre 2017
A common dilemma for those making decisions about withdrawal of treatment is whether to involve the Court of Protection.
The generally accepted position until recently was that decisions about withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) from patients in PVS or MCS should always - as a matter of good practice - be brought before the Court of Protection. Significantly, the Court of Protection Practice Direction relating to serious medical treatment provides that such cases 'should' be brought to Court.
According to the recent case of M (Withdrawal of Treatment: Need for Proceedings), however, there is no obligation to involve the Court where everyone is in agreement about what is in the patient's best interests.
We look at the impact of this case and what the future holds for withdrawal of treatment decision-making.
The patient ('M') had end-stage Huntingdon's disease. She had been dependent on CANH via PEG tube for many years. By the time the case came before the Court, she had not been showing any signs of awareness for about 18 months.
All those involved - including M's family, her treating clinicians and an external specialist asked to give a second opinion - were in agreement that withdrawal of CANH would be in M's best interests. However, in line with the Practice Direction, the Court of Protection was asked to decide whether it was in M's best interests for CANH to be stopped.
Having heard the evidence (including the view of M's mother that she would not have wanted to go on living as she was), the Court agreed that it would be in M's best interests for treatment to be withdrawn. CANH was subsequently withdrawn and M has sadly since died.
Given that there was no dispute about best interests in this case, however, the Judge was asked to give guidance on whether it had been necessary to bring the case to Court in the first place.
The Court recognised that the question of whether a Court application is or should remain a legal requirement has come under scrutiny recently, as follows:
The Official Solicitor (who frequently represents the interests of adults lacking capacity in Court of Protection cases) argued in 'M' that an application to Court should be made in every case of proposed withdrawal of CANH. Reasons given included, for example, the need to guard against the possibility of incorrect diagnosis and prognosis.
In the Judge's view, however:
He therefore concluded that there is no legal requirement for withdrawal of CANH decisions for PVS/MCS patients to be brought before the Court of Protection.
This means that, as long as decisions are reached in accordance with the relevant professional guidance (taking account of the importance of structured medical assessment in PVS/MCS cases and the need for expert second opinions) and in line with the usual MCA best interests provisions, they will be lawful.
Where does this leave clinicians making decisions about withdrawal of CANH for PVS/MCS patients who need to feel they are on solid legal ground?
Pending the development of further guidance as recommended by the Court of Protection Rules Committee, matters are currently in something of a state of flux. Whilst the M case means that there is no requirement to make an application to Court for all PVS/MCS CANH withdrawal cases, what is less clear is when it is still good practice to do so.
The question of whether there is 'doubt' or 'dispute' about a plan to withdraw may not always be clear-cut.
It will therefore be important to keep in mind the Judge's caveat to his decision - "...every case is intensely fact-specific, and those considering withdrawal of CANH should not hesitate to approach the Court of Protection in any case in which it seems to be right to do so".
Our national team of Mental Capacity Act and Court of Protection specialists have extensive experience of advising commissioners and providers across the health and social care sector.
We provide responsive, practical advice on all aspects of the law in this area, including:
We can also provide bespoke training in relation to all aspects of Court of Protection proceedings.
If you need advice in relation to a withdrawal of treatment case or other Court of Protection matter, please contact Gillian Weatherill on: +44(0)191 4044045 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
+44 (0)191 404 4045
+44 (0) 117 918 2744
+44 (0)113 251 4855
Matthew McGrath, Corinne Slingo, Tracey Longfield
Tracey Longfield, Louise Wiltshire, Christian Carr
Tracey Longfield, Gill Weatherill, Corinne Slingo, Anna Hart
Corinne Slingo, Tracey Longfield
Gill Weatherill, Paul McGough, Matthew Nichols
Misty Cawley, Sean Doherty, Philip Boyle
Gill Weatherill, Helen Kingston, Sarah Woods, Matthew Nichols
Gill Weatherill, Helen Kingston, Sarah Woods
Helen Kingston, Sarah Woods, Anna Eastwood-Jackson
Gill Weatherill, Paul McGough
Fadzai Smith, Simon Perkins
Corinne Slingo, Matthew McGrath
Corinne Slingo, Paul McGough
Niall Sexton, Gary Rice, Aideen Ryan, Aidan Healy, Brian Ormond
Corinne Slingo, Tracey Longfield, Christian Carr
Gill Weatherill, Sarah Woods, Anna Eastwood-Jackson
Peter Merchant, Belinda Dix