Court not needed to end life support

End-of-life care can be stopped if doctors, families agree.

Families and doctors LONDON — of patients in a persistent vegetative state will no longer need permission from a court to withdraw end-of-life care if both the relatives and the doctors agree, Britain’s highest court ruled Monday.

The accepted practice in Britain has long been that nutrition and fluids could not be withheld from a patient in a vegetative state without the approval of a specialist tribunal, the Court of Protection. But that approval process can take months or years, and cost health authorities thousands of pounds in legal fees.

Decisions on whether to withdraw end-of-life care are made for thousands of patients each year, the National Health Service reported, though it was not clear how many were in a persistent vegetative state, or in how many cases the families and doctors were in agreement.

The Supreme Court ruled that when there was a disagreement, the question would still have to be decided by the Court of Protection.

The case concerned a 52-year-old former financial analyst with extensive brain injury, who was identified in court only as Mr. Y. He never regained consciousness after a cardiac arrest in June 2017, and needed clinically assisted nutrition and hydration to keep him alive.

Experts said that it was highly improbable that he would re-emerge into consciousness, and that even if he did, he would be profoundly disabled. His family and doctors agreed to withdraw his feeding tube and allow him to die.

The National Health Service Trust asked the High Court of Justice to declare that approval from the Court of Protection was not necessary for a decision that the family doctors had agreed on.

While the judge agreed, the official solicitor, a state-appointed lawyer who represents those considered unable to make legal decisions for themselves, appealed on behalf of Mr. Y.