|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
United Kingdom Supreme Court
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Supreme Court >> Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v James  UKSC 67 (30 October 2013)
Cite as: (2013) 16 CCL Rep 554,  Bus LR 1199,  UKSC 67,  1 FCR 153,  Med LR 1,  1 All ER 573,  1 AC 591,  AC 591,  WLR(D) 421,  BUS LR 1199, (2014) 135 BMLR 1,  3 WLR 1299
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Buy ICLR report:  3 WLR 1299] [Buy ICLR report:  Bus LR 1199] [View ICLR summary:  WLR(D) 421] [Buy ICLR report:  1 AC 591] [Help]
 UKSC 67
On appeal from:  EWCA Civ 65
Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Respondent) v James (Appellant)
Lord Neuberger, President
Lady Hale, Deputy President
JUDGMENT GIVEN ON
30 October 2013
Heard on 24 July 2013
Ian Wise QC
(Instructed by Jackson and Canter)
Lord Pannick QC
(Instructed by Hill Dickinson LLP)
|Interveners (The Intensive Care Society; The Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine)
Alex Ruck Keene
(Instructed by Bevan Brittan LLP)
LADY HALE (with whom Lord Neuberger, Lord Clarke, Lord Carnwath and Lord Hughes agree)
(1) Invasive support for circulatory problems. This meant the administration of strong inotropic or vasopressor drugs in order to correct episodes of dangerously low blood pressure. The process is painful, involving needles and usually the insertion of a central line. The drugs have significant side effects and can cause a heart attack. They had previously been used to treat Mr James.
(2) Renal replacement therapy. This meant haemofiltration, filtering the blood through a machine to make up for the lack of kidney function. It too requires a large line to be inserted and an anti-coagulant drug which brings the risk of bleeding or a stroke. It can be very unpleasant for the patient and may cause intense feelings of cold. Mr James had not so far required this treatment.
(3) Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). This aims to make a heart which has stopped beating start beating again. So the decision has to be taken at once. It can take various forms, including the administration of drugs, electric shock therapy and physical compression of the chest and inflation of the lungs. To be effective, it is "deeply physical" and can involve significant rib fractures. CPR had successfully been given to Mr James when his heart had stopped beating in August.
• Life itself is of value and treatment may lengthen Mr James' life.
• He currently has a measurable quality of life from which he gains pleasure. Although his condition fluctuates, there have been improvements as well as deteriorations.
• It is likely that Mr James would want treatment up to the point where it became hopeless.
• His family strongly believes that this point has not been reached.
• It would not be right for him to die against a background of bitterness and grievance.
Against treatment were:
• The unchallenged diagnosis is that Mr James has sustained severe physical and neurological damage and the prognosis is gloomy, to the extent that it is regarded as highly unlikely that he will achieve independence again; his current treatment is invasive and every setback places him at a further disadvantage.
• The treatment may not work.
• The treatment would be extremely burdensome to endure.
• It is not in his interests to face a prolonged, excruciating and undignified death.
". . . the critical decision to be made is whether it is in the best interests of Anthony Bland to continue the invasive medical care involved in artificial feeding. That question is not the same as, 'Is it in Anthony Bland's best interests that he should die?' The latter question assumes that it is lawful to perpetuate life: but such perpetuation of life can only be achieved if it is lawful to continue to invade the bodily integrity of the patient by invasive medical care."
Deciding upon best interests
"(2) The person making the determination [for the purposes of this Act what is in a person's best interests] must consider all the relevant circumstances and, in particular, take the following steps.
(3) He must consider—(a) whether it is likely that the person will at some time have capacity in relation to the matter in question, and (b) if it appears likely that he will, when that is likely to be.
(4) He must, so far as reasonably practicable, permit and encourage the person to participate, or to improve his ability to participate, as fully as possible in any act done for him and any decision affecting him.
(5) Where the determination relates to life-sustaining treatment he must not, in considering whether the treatment is in the best interests of the person concerned, be motivated by a desire to bring about his death.
(6) He must consider, so far as is reasonably ascertainable—(a) the person's past and present wishes and feelings (and, in particular, any relevant written statement made by him when he had capacity), (b) the beliefs and values that would be likely to influence his decision if he had capacity, and (c) the other factors that he would be likely to consider if he were able to do so.
(7) He must take into account, if it is practicable and appropriate to consult them, the views of— . . . (b) anyone engaged in caring for the person or interested in his welfare, . . .
as to what would be in the person's best interests and, in particular, as to the matters mentioned in subsection (6).
(8) The duties imposed by subsections (1) to (7) also apply in relation to the exercise of any powers which—. . . (b) are exercisable by a person under this Act where he reasonably believes that another person lacks capacity.
(9) In the case of an act done, or a decision made, by a person other than the court, there is sufficient compliance with this section if (having complied with the requirements of subsections (1) to (7)) he reasonably believes that what he does or decides is in the best interests of the person concerned.
(10) "Life-sustaining treatment" means treatment which in the view of a person providing health care for the person concerned is necessary to sustain life.
(11) "Relevant circumstances" are those—(a) of which the person making the determination is aware, and (b) which it would be reasonable to regard as relevant."
"5.31 All reasonable steps which are in the person's best interests should be taken to prolong their life. There will be a limited number of cases where treatment is futile, overly burdensome to the patient or where there is no prospect of recovery. In circumstances such as these, it may be that an assessment of best interests leads to the conclusion that it would be in the best interests of the patient to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment, even if this may result in the person's death. The decision-maker must make a decision based on the best interests of the person who lacks capacity. They must not be motivated by a desire to bring about the person's death for whatever reason, even if this is from a sense of compassion. Healthcare and social care staff should also refer to relevant professional guidance when making decisions regarding life-sustaining treatment.
5.32 As with all decisions, before deciding to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment, the decision-maker must consider the range of treatment options available to work out what would be in the person's best interests. All the factors in the best interests checklist should be considered, and in particular, the decision-maker should consider any statements that the person has previously made about their wishes and feelings about life-sustaining treatment.
5.33 Importantly, section 4(5) cannot be interpreted to mean that doctors are under an obligation to provide, or to continue to provide, life-sustaining treatment where that treatment is not in the best interests of the person, even where the person's death is foreseen. Doctors must apply the best interests' checklist and use their professional skills to decide whether life-sustaining treatment is in the person's best interests. If the doctor's assessment is disputed, and there is no other way of resolving the dispute, ultimately the Court of Protection may be asked to decide what is in the person's best interests." (Emphasis supplied.)
How the judge and the Court of Appeal interpreted the patient's best interests
"(a) In Mr James' case, the treatments in question cannot be said to be futile, based on the evidence of their effect so far.
(b) Nor can they be said to be futile in the sense that they could only return Mr James to a quality of life which is not worth living.
(c) Although the burdens of treatment are very great indeed, they have to be weighed against the benefits of a continued existence.
(d) Nor can it be said that there is no prospect of recovery: recovery does not mean a return to full health, but the resumption of a quality of life that Mr James would regard as worthwhile. The references, noted above, to a cure or a return to the former pleasures of life set the standard unduly high".
"The goal may be to secure therapeutic benefit for the patient, that is to say the treatment must, standing alone or with other medical care, have the real prospect of curing or at least palliating the life-threatening disease or illness from which the patient is suffering." (para 35)
In his view, this was the goal against which futility should be judged (para 37). The judge had adopted too narrow a view of the futility of treatment. He should have had regard, not just to its effectiveness in coping with the current crisis, but to the improvement or lack of improvement which the treatment would bring to the general health of the patient (para 38).