Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles
Authors

WITHDRAWAL OF LIFE-SUSTAINING TREATMENT:X Primary Care Trust v XB [2012] EWHC 1390 (Fam), [2012] COPLR 577

Sep 29, 2018, 18:29 PM
Slug : 2012ewhc1390fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 24, 2012, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 100571

(Family Division, Theis J, 1 May 2012)

The man suffered from Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: Motor Neurone Disease, since he was 57. For the previous 8 years he was assisted by an invasive ventilation device. He was able to communicate using a communication board and latterly through eye movements. Despite his care needs he had been cared for at home assisted by carers from an independent care agency and his wife.

At various times the man had indicated his wish to have life-sustaining treatment withdrawn but had not done so in a consistent form. He then decided to execute an advance direction that he wished to withdraw his consent to treatment if his disease progressed to the stage where he could no longer communicate and lost the ability to control his decisions of care and management. It was agreed by the GP, mental capacity co-ordinator and the man's wife.

On the evidence it was clear the man had capacity to make the advance direction and that it complied with all the necessary formalities. Despite the fact that the document had a review date, it was not the man's intention that the direction should become ineffective at some point in the future and that date merely ensured that it was kept under review.

Categories :
  • Court of Protection
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from