Cargando…

When ‘Sanctity of Life’ and ‘Self-Determination’ clash: Briggs versus Briggs [2016] EWCOP 53 – implications for policy and practice

In a landmark judgment in the English Court of Protection, the judge (Charles J) found it to be in the best interests of a minimally conscious patient for clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) to be withdrawn, with the inevitable consequence that the patient would die. In making this ju...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kitzinger, Jenny, Kitzinger, Celia, Cowley, Jakki
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5520012/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28642353
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2016-104118
_version_ 1783251740905177088
author Kitzinger, Jenny
Kitzinger, Celia
Cowley, Jakki
author_facet Kitzinger, Jenny
Kitzinger, Celia
Cowley, Jakki
author_sort Kitzinger, Jenny
collection PubMed
description In a landmark judgment in the English Court of Protection, the judge (Charles J) found it to be in the best interests of a minimally conscious patient for clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) to be withdrawn, with the inevitable consequence that the patient would die. In making this judgment, it was accepted that the patient’s level of consciousness — if CANH were continued and rehabilitation provided — might improve, and that he might become capable of expressing emotions and making simple choices. The decision to withdraw treatment relied on a best interests decision, which gave great weight to the patient’s past wishes, feelings, values and beliefs, and brought a ‘holistic’ approach to understanding what this particular patient would have wanted. We draw on our own experience of supporting families, advocating for patients and training healthcare professionals in similar situations to consider the implications of the published judgment for policy and practice with patients in prolonged disorders of consciousness and their families.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5520012
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55200122017-07-31 When ‘Sanctity of Life’ and ‘Self-Determination’ clash: Briggs versus Briggs [2016] EWCOP 53 – implications for policy and practice Kitzinger, Jenny Kitzinger, Celia Cowley, Jakki J Med Ethics Disorders of Consciousness In a landmark judgment in the English Court of Protection, the judge (Charles J) found it to be in the best interests of a minimally conscious patient for clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) to be withdrawn, with the inevitable consequence that the patient would die. In making this judgment, it was accepted that the patient’s level of consciousness — if CANH were continued and rehabilitation provided — might improve, and that he might become capable of expressing emotions and making simple choices. The decision to withdraw treatment relied on a best interests decision, which gave great weight to the patient’s past wishes, feelings, values and beliefs, and brought a ‘holistic’ approach to understanding what this particular patient would have wanted. We draw on our own experience of supporting families, advocating for patients and training healthcare professionals in similar situations to consider the implications of the published judgment for policy and practice with patients in prolonged disorders of consciousness and their families. BMJ Publishing Group 2017-07 2017-07-22 /pmc/articles/PMC5520012/ /pubmed/28642353 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2016-104118 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Disorders of Consciousness
Kitzinger, Jenny
Kitzinger, Celia
Cowley, Jakki
When ‘Sanctity of Life’ and ‘Self-Determination’ clash: Briggs versus Briggs [2016] EWCOP 53 – implications for policy and practice
title When ‘Sanctity of Life’ and ‘Self-Determination’ clash: Briggs versus Briggs [2016] EWCOP 53 – implications for policy and practice
title_full When ‘Sanctity of Life’ and ‘Self-Determination’ clash: Briggs versus Briggs [2016] EWCOP 53 – implications for policy and practice
title_fullStr When ‘Sanctity of Life’ and ‘Self-Determination’ clash: Briggs versus Briggs [2016] EWCOP 53 – implications for policy and practice
title_full_unstemmed When ‘Sanctity of Life’ and ‘Self-Determination’ clash: Briggs versus Briggs [2016] EWCOP 53 – implications for policy and practice
title_short When ‘Sanctity of Life’ and ‘Self-Determination’ clash: Briggs versus Briggs [2016] EWCOP 53 – implications for policy and practice
title_sort when ‘sanctity of life’ and ‘self-determination’ clash: briggs versus briggs [2016] ewcop 53 – implications for policy and practice
topic Disorders of Consciousness
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5520012/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28642353
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2016-104118
work_keys_str_mv AT kitzingerjenny whensanctityoflifeandselfdeterminationclashbriggsversusbriggs2016ewcop53implicationsforpolicyandpractice
AT kitzingercelia whensanctityoflifeandselfdeterminationclashbriggsversusbriggs2016ewcop53implicationsforpolicyandpractice
AT cowleyjakki whensanctityoflifeandselfdeterminationclashbriggsversusbriggs2016ewcop53implicationsforpolicyandpractice