When ‘Sanctity of Life’ and ‘Self-Determination’ Clash: Briggs v Briggs [2016] EWCOP 53 - Implications for policy and practice

Kitzinger, Jenny ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2593-8033, Kitzinger, Celia and Cowley, Jakki 2017. When ‘Sanctity of Life’ and ‘Self-Determination’ Clash: Briggs v Briggs [2016] EWCOP 53 - Implications for policy and practice. Journal of Medical Ethics 43 , pp. 446-449. 10.1136/medethics-2016-104118

Preview

PDF - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (245kB) | Preview

Abstract

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be in the best interests of a minimally conscious patient for clinically-assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) to be withdrawn, with the inevitable consequence that the patient would die.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 health care 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.

Item Type:	Article
Date Type:	Publication
Status:	Published
Schools:	Journalism, Media and Culture
Subjects:	H Social Sciences > H Social Sciences (General) H Social Sciences > HM Sociology K Law > KD England and Wales
Publisher:	BMJ Publishing Group
ISSN:	0306-6800
Date of First Compliant Deposit:	7 June 2017
Date of Acceptance:	16 May 2017
Last Modified:	02 May 2023 13:34
URI:	https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/101120

Citation Data

Cited 5 times in Scopus. View in Scopus. Powered By Scopus® Data

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item