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

{{Case
|Date=2015-11-19
|NCN=[2015] EWCOP 76
|Other citations=[2015] MHLO 102
|Court=Court of Protection
|Judges=Hayden
|Parties=M, Mrs N, Bury Clinical Commissioning Group, A Care Provider
|Judicial history=*[[M v Press Association (2016) EWCOP 34]]
*[[M v Mrs N (2015) EWCOP 76]]
|Sentence=Minimally-conscious state
|Summary=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."
|External links=*{{link
|deadurl=https://www.brownejacobson.com/health/training-and-resources/legal-updates/2015/11/shift-in-mental-capacity-law-towards-a-substituted-judgment-test
|text=Browne Jacobson, 'Shift in Mental Capacity law towards a substituted judgment test' (19/11/15)
|saved=s}}
|Subject=Medical treatment cases
|News=No
|RSS pubdate=2025-3-15 02:46:01 PM
}}