By continuing to browse our site, you are consenting to the use of cookies. Click here for more information on the cookies we use.


Defending life
from conception to natural death


Supreme Court: Families can decide to starve brain damaged patients to death

30 July 2018

Food and fluids can be removed if doctors and families agree it's in a patient's "best interests".  

"The Supreme Court has set a dangerous precedent"

The Supreme Court has ruled that doctors can withdraw food and fluid from brain-damaged patients without going to court - if the patient's family are in agreement.

The Care not Killing (CNK) Alliance, of which SPUC is a key member, has expressed concern and disappointment that a key safeguard has been removed from vulnerable patients.

Best interests?

The ruling will affect up to 24,000 patients with permanent vegetative state (PVS) and minimally conscious state (MCS), meaning they can now be effectively starved and dehydrated to death if the medical staff and relatives agree that this is in their 'best interests'.

People in these states can breathe without ventilators, but need to have food and fluids by tube (clinically assisted nutrition and hydration or CANH). Until last year, all requests to remove CANH had to go before the Court of Protection. Now, the Supreme Court has upheld an earlier ruling by the High Court that where relatives and medical staff agree that withdrawal of CANH is in the patient's 'best interests', the Court of Protection need not be involved.

Slippery slope

CNK Campaign Director Dr Peter Saunders said that the ruling "removes an important safeguard from those without a voice."

He also slammed the Supreme Court's ruling that there is no difference in principle between turning off a ventilator and removing a feeding tube as both are 'forms of medical treatment'

"In making these declarations Lady Black and the Supreme Court have dramatically moved the goalposts on end of life decision-making," he said. "Once we accept that death by dehydration is in some brain-damaged people's 'best interests' we are on a very slippery slope indeed.

'There is a clear difference between turning off a ventilator on a brain-dead patient and removing CANH from a brain-damaged patient. PVS and MCS differ from conditions with a 'downward trajectory' because they are not progressive and do not in themselves lead inevitably to death."

Thousands of people in danger

Dr Saunders also spelt out how the ruling puts the lives of the thousands of brain damaged people at risk, especially at a time when medical advances are being made in the treatment of severe brain conditions. "The Supreme Court has set a dangerous precedent," he said. "Taking these decisions away from the Court of Protection removes an important layer of legislative scrutiny and accountability and effectively weakens the law.

"It will make it more likely that severely brain-damaged patients will be starved or dehydrated to death in their supposed 'best interests' and that these decisions will be more influenced by those who have ideological or financial vested interests in this course of action."

News in brief:

Add your comment

Comments (2)

  • Ernie

    30 July 2018, 6:36pm

    People who assert that (effectively) killing someone is "in the best interests of the person" are ogres. They do not think or speak in a rational way. They make up "principles" as they go along.

    They do not contain a single drop of human kindness in their bodies It is they who are the true heirs of the shameful and wicked Margaret Sanger.

    May the Lord God have mercy on them - if they repent.

    Your comment has been submitted and is currently awaiting approval
  • Katie Goryl

    2 August 2018, 1:57am

    Our standard of healthcare in the United States is Patient centered care. The focus is on the patient. The patient determines what is in their best interest. How can we keep this Patient centered care standard if we can not, as a threshold expectation, count on our doctors and healthcare team to save our lives?
    Please read the Hippocratic oath, the original version. Healthcare was founded on a culture of life. "First do no harm".
    If we want a peaceful world, let's focus on sanctity of life and dignity of the human person from conception to natural death. If we did that, wouldn't our world be safer? Wouldn't we be well on our way to world peace?
    Life​ is the path to peace, is it not?

    Your comment has been submitted and is currently awaiting approval

Share this article

  Donate to save lives