Display title | M v A Hospital [2017] EWCOP 19 |
Default sort key | M v A Hospital (2017) EWCOP 19 |
Page length (in bytes) | 1,583 |
Page ID | 9284 |
Page content language | en - English |
Page content model | wikitext |
Indexing by robots | Allowed |
Number of redirects to this page | 0 |
Counted as a content page | Yes |
Edit | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
Move | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
Page creator | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
Date of page creation | 23:28, 16 February 2018 |
Latest editor | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
Date of latest edit | 22:28, 10 April 2019 |
Total number of edits | 3 |
Total number of distinct authors | 1 |
Recent number of edits (within past 90 days) | 0 |
Recent number of distinct authors | 0 |
Description | Content |
Article description: (description ) This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | "This judgment is given: (a) To explain why CANH was withdrawn from M, a person in a minimally conscious state (MCS).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 The short answer to these questions is that: (a) CANH was withdrawn because it was not in M's best interests for it to be continued.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 1169B, 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." |