On 26 and 27 February 2018, the Supreme Court heard the Appeal in an NHS Trust and Others (Respondents) v Y (By his Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor) (Appellant).

The Appeal considers the important issue of whether it is mandatory to bring before the court the withdrawal of Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration ("CANH") from a patient who has a prolonged disorder of consciousness (“PDOC”), in circumstances where the clinical team and the family are agreed that it is not in the patient's best interests that he continues to receive that treatment.

Capital Law LLP, together with Katherine Scott of 39 Essex Chambers, acted on behalf of the British Medical Association (“the BMA”), the third Intervener in the Appeal, who provided written submissions and evidence to assist the Court in understanding the role of the BMA in providing guidance on best clinical practice in this area, the factual context, the implications of the OS’s position and the importance of there being clarity as to when to bring the issue of withholding or withdrawing CANH before the courts. The other interveners are the Intensive Care Society and Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine and Care Not Killing.

The facts of the case and the hearing in the Supreme Court can be viewed here: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2017-0202.html.

If you would like more information, please get in touch with Stacey Whittle, solicitor in the Capital Law Disputes team.