Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Advocates
- MS KATIE SCOTT instructed by DAC Beachcroft LLP on behalf of the applicant
- MS SOPHIA ROPER instructed by the Official Solicitor on behalf of TG
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v. TG & Anor
Smart Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
On 16th December 2018, the Plaintiff collapsed at a church service due to a massive subarachnoid haemorrhage, followed by a secondary cardiac arrest. Resuscitation efforts were delayed, resulting in severe brain damage. The Plaintiff remains an inpatient in the critical care unit of the Royal Bournemouth Hospital, currently intubated and ventilated, but in a persistent vegetative state with no meaningful chance of recovery. The medical professionals agree that continuation of intubation is unlikely to improve her condition. The court was asked to determine whether it is in the Plaintiff's best interests to continue intubation or to discontinue it, a decision involving complex medical evidence and consideration of the Plaintiff’s wishes, feelings, beliefs, and values under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Legal Issues Presented
- Is it in the best interests of the Plaintiff to continue or discontinue intubation?
- How should the court apply the best interests test under section 4 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, considering the Plaintiff’s past and present wishes, beliefs, and values?
- What weight should be given to the sanctity of life principle versus the Plaintiff’s right to self-determination in this context?
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789 |
Established the legal framework for withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in persistent vegetative state cases before the Mental Capacity Act 2005. |
The court acknowledged Bland as foundational but distinguished it due to the absence of the Mental Capacity Act and the presence of clear evidence of the Plaintiff’s wishes in the present case. |
| Briggs (No. 2) [2017] 4 WLR 37 |
Emphasizes the importance of self-determination and that the wishes of a patient, if ascertainable with sufficient certainty, may prevail over the presumption in favor of preserving life. |
The court cited Briggs to highlight the need to carefully balance sanctity of life against self-determination, reinforcing the centrality of the Plaintiff’s ascertainable wishes. |
| Lambert v France [2000] 30 EHRR 346 |
Recognition under Article 8 ECHR of personal autonomy and the right to respect for private life, including decisions about the manner and timing of one’s life ending. |
The court referenced Lambert to underline the importance of respecting the Plaintiff’s autonomy and personal beliefs in best interests decision-making. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by accepting the unanimous medical evidence that the Plaintiff is in a severe vegetative state with no realistic prospect of meaningful recovery and that continuation of intubation is medically futile. Despite this, the court carefully considered the Plaintiff’s wishes, feelings, beliefs, and values as required by section 4 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The Plaintiff’s Catholic faith and profound respect for life were central to the analysis, supported by detailed family statements indicating the Plaintiff’s desire to continue life support regardless of the quality of life or consciousness. The court acknowledged the strong presumption in favor of preserving life but emphasized that the best interests test extends beyond clinical considerations to include personal values and beliefs.
The court rejected the family’s interpretation that the Plaintiff showed any conscious response, accepting the medical view that observed movements were reflexive. It also found that concerns about indignity or pain were not significant factors, given the Plaintiff’s current state and the availability of pain relief if minimal consciousness were to emerge.
Balancing the benefits of discontinuing treatment (ending a process deemed futile and avoiding possible pain or indignity) against the benefits of continuing treatment (respecting the Plaintiff’s wishes, preserving life, allowing for possible minimal improvement, and maintaining her role within the family), the court concluded that the latter outweighed the former at this stage. The court noted that the decision was made at an early stage—two months post-injury—before the period after which a vegetative state is considered permanent.
Holding and Implications
The court’s final decision is to refuse the application to discontinue intubation, determining that it is in the Plaintiff’s best interests that intubation continue.
This decision directly affects the parties by requiring the continuation of life-sustaining treatment despite medical opinion favoring withdrawal. The court emphasized that this ruling is based on the Plaintiff’s ascertainable wishes and values and does not set new legal precedent. The court also acknowledged that circumstances may change in the future, potentially leading to different considerations.
Click here to read the full judgment