The Right To Die

Posted on 13 Jan 2017

Always a controversial subject, the Court of Protection examined whether to authorise refusal of life-sustaining treatment at a hearing held on 20 December 2016.

The case was Briggs v Briggs and involved the treatment of Mr Briggs following his involvement in a motorcycle accident in July 2015. He was left barely conscious and did not have the ability to make decisions himself for his continued care and treatment. His survival was dependent upon receiving clinically assisted nutrition and hydration. If he did not receive this, he would die. The clinicians wanted to transfer him to a rehabilitation unit and work on keeping him alive. His wife and family wanted Mr Briggs to be transferred to a hospice where he would be kept comfortable but not receive life prolonging treatment and instead, be allowed to die as painlessly and peacefully as possible.

The Court of Protection acknowledged that the doctor’s position should always be to preserve life wherever possible. However, the Court was swayed by Mrs Briggs’ convincing evidence that if her husband had been able to decide for himself, he would have wanted to stop treatment.

This became the overriding factor in this case. The Court found that if Mr Briggs had been able to hear all of the medical advice that he would, in exercise of his right of self-determination, not have consented to further artificial nutrition and hydration. The Court felt that they should do, on Mr Briggs’ behalf, what he would have wanted and done for himself.

Undoubtedly, this would have been a difficult decision for the Court to make. That an application had to be brought before the Court would have also added increased stress to Mr Briggs’ wife and close family members. The Court had to rely on evidence from Mr Briggs’ wife as Mr Briggs had not made any prior arrangements, such as a Living Will or a Lasting Power of Attorney for his health and welfare. If he had done so, his wife and the hospital would have more easily been able to agree the best way forward for Mr Briggs and it would have been unlikely that Court intervention was required.

The importance therefore of formally making wishes clear and recording this with proper legal documentation cannot be underestimated. None of us can plan for every eventuality but we can set out a broad outline of our wishes and feelings, which will enable others to respect our right of self-determination for health and welfare decisions.

By Siân Thompson – Solicitor in our Llandudno Office who specialises in matters of Probate Law such as Wills, Trusts & Estates. She is a court-appointed Deputy for clients under the Court of Protection and also acts as a professional trustee and attorney, as well as being STEP qualified and a full member of Solicitors for the Elderly.