Page values for "NHS Trust v Y (2018) UKSC 46"
"_pageData" values
1 row is stored for this pageField | Field type | Value |
---|---|---|
_creationDate | Datetime | 2018-07-31 9:46:38 PM |
_modificationDate | Datetime | 2021-12-14 2:27:56 PM |
_creator | String | Jonathan |
_fullText | Searchtext | {{Case |Date=2018/01/30 |NCN=[2018] UKSC 46 |ICLR=[2018] WLR(D) 490 |Other citations=[2019] 1 All ER 95, (2018) 163 BMLR 1, (2018) 21 CCL Rep 410, [2018] 3 WLR 751, [2018] COPLR 371, [2019] AC 978 |Court=Supreme Court |Judges=Hale, Mance, Wilson, Hodge, Black |Parties=An NHS Trust, Mr Y, Mrs Y |Judi ... |
_categories | List of String, delimiter: | | 2018 cases • Cases • ICLR summary • Judgment available on Bailii • Medical treatment cases • Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function • Judgment_available_on_Bailii • 2018_cases |
_isRedirect | Boolean | No |
_pageNameOrRedirect | String | NHS Trust v Y (2018) UKSC 46 |
_pageID | Integer | 9,451 |
_pageName | Page | NHS Trust v Y (2018) UKSC 46 |
_pageTitle | String | NHS Trust v Y [2018] UKSC 46 |
_pageNamespace | Integer | 0 |
"Cases" values
1 row is stored for this pageField | Field type | Value |
---|---|---|
Sentence | Wikitext | Court order not always necessary for withdrawal of CANH |
Summary | Wikitext | "The question that arises in this appeal is whether a court order must always be obtained before clinically assisted nutrition and hydration, which is keeping alive a person with a prolonged disorder of consciousness, can be withdrawn, or whether, in some circumstances, this can occur without court involvement. ... In conclusion, having looked at the issue in its wider context as well as from a narrower legal perspective, I do not consider that it has been established that the common law or the ECHR, in combination or separately, give rise to the mandatory requirement, for which the Official Solicitor contends, to involve the court to decide upon the best interests of every patient with a prolonged disorder of consciousness before CANH can be withdrawn. If the provisions of the MCA 2005 are followed and the relevant guidance observed, and if there is agreement upon what is in the best interests of the patient, the patient may be treated in accordance with that agreement without application to the court. I would therefore dismiss the appeal. In so doing, however, I would emphasise that, although application to court is not necessary in every case, there will undoubtedly be cases in which an application will be required (or desirable) because of the particular circumstances that appertain, and there should be no reticence about involving the court in such cases." |
Detail | Text | |
Subject | List of String, delimiter: , | Medical treatment cases |
Judicial_history | Wikitext | |
Judicial_history_first_page | Page | |
Date | Date | 2018-01-30 |
Judges | List of String, delimiter: , | Hale • Mance • Wilson • Hodge • Black |
Parties | List of String, delimiter: , | An NHS Trust • Mr Y • Mrs Y |
Court | String | Supreme Court |
NCN | String | [2018] UKSC 46 |
MHLR | String | |
ICLR | String | [2018] WLR(D) 490 |
ICLR_ID | String | |
Essex | String | |
Essex_issue | String | |
Essex_page | String | |
Other_citations | List of String, delimiter: , | [2019] 1 All ER 95 • (2018) 163 BMLR 1 • (2018) 21 CCL Rep 410 • [2018] 3 WLR 751 • [2018] COPLR 371 • [2019] AC 978 |
Cites | List of String, delimiter: # | |
External_links | Text | *[http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2018/46.image.pdf Court's press summary] |
Judgment | File |