View source for Re M; W v M (2011) EWHC 2443 (COP)

''M is in a minimally-conscious state (the three categories of disorders of consciousness being coma, vegetative state and minimally-conscious state); family members applied to court to argue that the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration was in M's best interests. (1) The Official Solicitor's argument that withdrawal can never be in the best interests of a clinically-stable MCS patient was rejected in favour of the usual 'balance sheet' approach to best interests, although clinical stability is an important factor. (2) In analysing best interests, the judge considered (a) preservation of life, (b) M's past wishes and feelings, (c) pain, (d) enjoyment of life, (e) prospects of recovery, (f) dignity, and (g) wishes and feelings of family members and carers. (3) It was not in M's best interests for ANH to be withdrawn: the preservation of life was the decisive factor in this case. (4) The judge made the following observations for future cases: (a) a decision to withhold or withdraw ANH from a person in VS or MCS must be referred to the court; (b) no such application should be made unless the necessary assessments for MCS have been carried out; (c) non-means-tested Legal Aid should be available for family members in such applications; (d) consistent with privacy, it is imperative that the press should be free to report such cases. (5) A radical review of M's care plan will be the subject of further submissions; in the meantime, the do-not-resusitate order was continued and other treatment left to clinical discretion.''

==Related judgments==
[[Re M; W v M (2011) EWHC 2443 (COP)]]
*[[Re M; W v M (2011) EWHC 1197 (COP)]]

==ICLR==
{{ICLR|Re M; W v M (2011) EWHC 2443 (Fam)}}

==Other==
Hearing dates: 18th to 22nd and 25th to 29th July and 1st August 2011 

Judgment: 28/09/2011

Before: Baker J

Vikram Sachdeva and Victoria Butler-Cole (instructed by Irwin Mitchell) for the Applicant

Caroline Harry Thomas QC and Katherine Apps (instructed by the Official Solicitor) for M

Bridget Dolan (instructed by Beachcroft LLP) for the Primary Care Trust

S was present for part of the hearing but not represented

==Citations==
[2011] EWHC 2443 (COP), [2011] WLR (D) 283, [2011] All ER (D) 142 (Sep)

==External links==
{{#bailii:(2011) EWHC 2443 (Fam)}}

[http://cases.iclr.co.uk/Subscr/search.aspx?path=WLR%20Dailies/WLRD%202011/wlrd2011-283 ICLR website]

Press articles, pre-judgment:

*[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/wirecopy/8647831/High-Court-judge-gives-brain-damaged-sister-right-to-die.html Daily Telegraph, 'High Court judge gives brain-damaged sister right to die' (20/7/11)] (inaccurate headline)
*[http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/man-pleads-with-court-for-right-to-end-his-partners-life-2317167.html Andy McSmith, 'Man pleads with court for right to end his partner's life' (Independent, 20/7/11)]
*[http://www.pressassociation.com/component/pafeeds/2011/07/19/life_sustaining_case_comes_to_court Press Association, 'Family legal bid to let patient die' (19/7/11)]
*[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8452048/Mother-seeks-to-let-daughter-with-brain-damage-die.html Martin Beckford, 'Mother seeks to let daughter with brain damage die' (Daily Telegraph, 15/4/11)]. This article relates to a preliminary Court of Protection hearing on 14/4/11 before Baker J, involving a patient M who is in a minimally conscious state (rather than a persistent vegetative state): M's mother wants artificial nutrition and hydration to be removed, whereas the Official Solicitor argues that it is M's best interests to be kept alive.
*[http://www.pressassociation.com/component/pafeeds/2011/07/20/brain_damaged_woman_shows_smile Press Association, 'Brain-damaged woman shows "smile" (20/7/11)]
*[http://www.pressassociation.com/component/pafeeds/2011/05/13/judge_imposes_twitter_court_ban Press Association, 'Judge imposes Twitter court ban' (13/5/11)]
*[http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=5557&blogid=140 Celia Kitzinger and Jenny Kitzinger, '“M,” Polly, and the Right to Die' (Bioethics Forum, 12/10/11)]

Press articles, post-judgment:

*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2011/sep/29/m-law-brain-damaged-woman Lucy Series, '"M" and the law: a difficult case heard in the right court' (Guardian, 29/9/11)]

*[http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/09/30/what-is-a-life-worth-living-further-analysis-of-m-daniel-sokol/ Daniel Sokol, 'What is a life worth living? Further analysis of "M"' (UK Human Rights Blog, 30/9/11)]

*[http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/09/30/no-right-to-die-without-a-living-will Rosalind English, 'No right to die without a "Living will"' (UK Human Rights Blog, 30/9/11)] - 'The message underlying this ruling  is clear: if you want to avoid the risk of spending years of your life subject to aggressive medical intervention whilst imprisoned in a cage of bare-consciousness, make a living will.'

*[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5ilSR3GznXlvqHIlJjMLbqXw8fMtw?docId=B8046581319629637A0000 UKPA, 'Brain-damage woman ruling challenge' (26/10/11)]. Applicant seeks leave to appeal to Court of Appeal.

[[Category:Best interests]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2011 cases]]