Holly.gif

Information for "NHS Trust v Y (2018) UKSC 46"

Basic information

Display titleNHS Trust v Y [2018] UKSC 46
Default sort keyNHS Trust v Y (2018) UKSC 46
Page length (in bytes)1,995
Page ID9451
Page content languageen - English
Page content modelwikitext
Indexing by robotsAllowed
Number of redirects to this page0
Counted as a content pageYes

Page protection

EditAllow only users with "editing" permission (infinite)
MoveAllow only users with "editing" permission (infinite)
View the protection log for this page.

Edit history

Page creatorJonathan (talk | contribs)
Date of page creation21:46, 31 July 2018
Latest editorJonathan (talk | contribs)
Date of latest edit14:27, 14 December 2021
Total number of edits6
Total number of distinct authors1
Recent number of edits (within past 90 days)0
Recent number of distinct authors0

Page properties

Hidden categories (2)

This page is a member of 2 hidden categories:

Transcluded templates (14)

Templates used on this page:

SEO properties

Description

Content

Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements.
"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assisted nutrition and hydration, which is keeping alive a person with a prolonged disorder of consciousness, can be withdrawn, or whether, in some circumstances, this can occur without court involvement.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court to decide upon the best interests of every patient with a prolonged disorder of consciousness before CANH can be withdrawn.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."
Information from Extension:WikiSEO