View source for M v Mrs N (2015) EWCOP 76, (2015) MHLO 102

''It was in the best interests of N, who was in a minimally-conscious state, not to continue to receive clinically assisted nutrition and hydration. The judge concluded that: "Ultimately, I have concluded that her wishes, so thoughtfully presented by her family, coupled with the intrusive nature of the treatment and its minimal potential to achieve any medical objective, rebut any presumption of continuing to promote life. Quite simply, I have come to the conclusion that it would be disrespectful to Mrs. N to preserve her further in a manner I think '''she''' would regard as grotesque."''

==Related judgments==
[[M v Press Association (2016) EWCOP 34, (2016) MHLO 39]]
*[[M v Mrs N (2015) EWCOP 76, (2015) MHLO 102]]
==External links==
{{#bailii:(2015) EWCOP 76}}

{{link|https://www.brownejacobson.com/health/training-and-resources/legal-updates/2015/11/shift-in-mental-capacity-law-towards-a-substituted-judgment-test|Browne Jacobson, 'Shift in Mental Capacity law towards a substituted judgment test' (19/11/15)|s}}

[[Category:Medical treatment cases]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2015 cases]]