View source for M v A Hospital (2017) EWCOP 19

{{Case
|Date=2017/09/20
|NCN=[2017] EWCOP 19
|ICLR=[2017] WLR(D) 615
|Other citations=[2018] 2 All ER 551, [2017] Med LR 558, [2018] 1 WLR 465, [2017] COPLR 398
|Court=Court of Protection
|Judges=Peter Jackson
|Parties=M, A Hospital
|Sentence=Withdrawal of CANH
|Summary="This judgment is given: (a) To explain why CANH was withdrawn from M, a person in a minimally conscious state (MCS). (b) In response to the request of the parties for clarification of whether legal proceedings were necessary or not when there was agreement between M's family and her clinicians that CANH was no longer in her best interests. (c) To explain why the court appointed M's mother, Mrs B, as her litigation friend, rather than the Official Solicitor. The short answer to these questions is that: (a) CANH was withdrawn because it was not in M's best interests for it to be continued. The evidence showed that it had not been beneficial for the previous year. (b) In my view, it was not necessary as a matter of law for this case to have been brought to court, but given the terms of Practice Direction 9E and the state of the affairs before the very recent decision of the Court of Appeal on 31 July in the case of Briggs [2017] EWCA Civ 1169, it is understandable that the application was made. (c) Mrs B was appointed as litigation friend because she was a proper person to act in that role: the fact that she supported the withdrawal of her daughter's treatment did not show that she had an adverse interest to her."
|Subject=Medical treatment cases
|News=No
|RSS pubdate=2019/04/10 10:21:11 PM
}}