1995 English <strong>Law</strong> Commissi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Report</str<strong>on</strong>g> that resp<strong>on</strong>ded to the high-profile Blandend-of-life case.(a)Airedale NHS Trust v Bland1.24 Airedale NHS Trust v Bland 27 involved T<strong>on</strong>y Bland who, as a 17 yearold, was severely injured in the 1989 Hillsborough football disaster, in which 96people died in a crush of people at Sheffield Wednesday‘s Hillsborough stadiumbefore the 1989 FA Cup semi final. The injuries led to profound brain damage,leaving him in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). He was not able to see, hear,taste, smell, speak or communicate in any way, was incapable of involuntarymovement, could not feel pain and had no cognitive functi<strong>on</strong>. He was able tobreathe unaided but as he could not eat or swallow food, he was kept alive <strong>on</strong> alife support system involving a nasogastric (ng) tube, a feeding tube insertedthrough the nasal passage and reaching into the stomach. 281.25 The unanimous view of all the medical team treating Mr Bland wasthat he had no hope whatsoever of recovery or improvement of any kind. Justover 3 years after he received the injuries, his c<strong>on</strong>sultant, supported by othermedical experts, reached the c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong> that it would be appropriate to ceasefurther treatment, that the artificial feeding through the nasogastric tube shouldbe withdrawn and that no antibiotic treatment should be given if he developedan infecti<strong>on</strong>. The effect would be that, within 2 to 3 weeks he would die bystarvati<strong>on</strong>. The NHS Trust treating Mr Bland applied for a declarati<strong>on</strong> that thewithdrawal of artificial nutriti<strong>on</strong> and hydrati<strong>on</strong> (ANH) in these circumstanceswould be lawful and that the <strong>on</strong>ly treatment required after this would be the solepurpose of enabling him to allow him to end his life and die peacefully with thegreatest dignity and the least pain, suffering and distress. The applicati<strong>on</strong> wassupported by his parents and family.1.26 The House of Lords decided that a doctor treating a patient who didnot have the capacity to decide whether or not to c<strong>on</strong>sent to treatment was notunder an absolute obligati<strong>on</strong> to prol<strong>on</strong>g the patient‘s life regardless of thecircumstances or the quality of the patient‘s life. The Court held that the test tobe applied was whether it was in the patient‘s best interests not to prol<strong>on</strong>g lifebecause treatment would c<strong>on</strong>fer no benefit <strong>on</strong> him. On that basis, if aresp<strong>on</strong>sible and competent doctor made the decisi<strong>on</strong> to disc<strong>on</strong>tinue treatment,no criminal offence would be involved. Thus the House of Lords agreed that thedeclarati<strong>on</strong> that had been applied for could be made.2728[1993] 1 All ER 821.This is to be c<strong>on</strong>trasted with a sec<strong>on</strong>d form of feeding tube, the percutaneousendoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube, which in inserted directly through thestomach wall.15
1.27 Two of the <strong>Law</strong> Lords also expressed views <strong>on</strong> the potential legalstatus of advance care directives. Lord Keith stated: 29―an adult, who is c<strong>on</strong>scious and of sound mind…is completely atliberty to decline to undergo treatment, even if the result of his doingso is that he will die. This extends to the situati<strong>on</strong> where the pers<strong>on</strong>,in anticipati<strong>on</strong> of his... entering into a c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong> such as PVS, givesclear instructi<strong>on</strong>s that is such event his is not to be given medicalcare, including artificial feeding, designed to keep him alive.‖1.28 Similarly, Lord Goff stated: 30(b)―a patient of sound mind may, if properly informed, require that lifesupport should be disc<strong>on</strong>tinued: see Nancy B v Hotel-Dieu deQuebec. 31 Moreover, the same principle applies where the patient‘srefusal to give his c<strong>on</strong>sent has been expressed at an earlier date...though in such circumstances especial care may be necessary toensure that the prior refusal of c<strong>on</strong>sent is still properly to be regardedas applicable in the circumstances which have subsequentlyoccurred (see eg Re T (adult: refusal of medical treatment). 32 ‖Case law after Bland1.29 In Re C, 33 a 68-year old man with chr<strong>on</strong>ic paranoid schizophreniasuffered from the delusi<strong>on</strong> that he was a world famous doctor who had neverlost a patient. He developed gangrene in his leg, but refused amputati<strong>on</strong> despitethe hospital‘s assessment that he would die immediately if the operati<strong>on</strong> wasdelayed. He sought an injuncti<strong>on</strong> to prevent the hospital from amputating his legin the future. Thorpe J was prepared to find him competent and granted theinjuncti<strong>on</strong>. Mr C survived without the amputati<strong>on</strong>. Re C is an illustrati<strong>on</strong> thatadvance care directives are not c<strong>on</strong>fined to end-of-life situati<strong>on</strong>s but alsoinvolve the c<strong>on</strong>tinuati<strong>on</strong> of care.1.30 In Re AK, 34 a 19-year old patient suffered from a progressive neuromusculardisease causing paralaysis. He informed his carers, by means of aneyelid movement, that he would wish his artificial ventilati<strong>on</strong> to be stopped if hecould no l<strong>on</strong>ger communicate. The health authority applied to the High Court for293031323334[1993] 1 All ER 821, at 860.Ibid, at 866.(1992) 86 DLR (4 th ) 385 (Quebec Superior Court).[1992] 4 All ER 649.[1994] 1 WLR 290.[2001] 1 FLR 129.16
- Page 1: ReportBIOETHICS:AD
- Page 4 and 5: LAW REFORM COMMISSION‘S ROLEThe L
- Page 6 and 7: LAW REFORM RESEARCH STAFFDirector o
- Page 8 and 9: CONTACT DETAILSFurther information
- Page 10 and 11: TABLE OF CONTENTSTable of Legislati
- Page 12 and 13: CHAPTER 4CONSEQUENCES OF ESTABLISHI
- Page 15: TABLE OF CASESAiredale NHS Trust v
- Page 19 and 20: advance care directives in the Unit
- Page 22 and 23: CHAPTER 1ORIGINS OF ADVANCE CARE DI
- Page 24 and 25: 1.08 The second major development i
- Page 26 and 27: Refusal of treatments by pregnant w
- Page 28 and 29: we believe Karen‘s choice, if she
- Page 32 and 33: a declaration that it would be lawf
- Page 34 and 35: Disabilities. 42 The draft Recommen
- Page 36 and 37: (5) The development of advance care
- Page 38 and 39: 1.45 In the Supreme Court, Hamilton
- Page 40 and 41: when determining the capacity quest
- Page 42 and 43: (d)Current use of advance care dire
- Page 44 and 45: e upheld. Indeed, this conclusion f
- Page 46 and 47: services, the need for palliative c
- Page 48 and 49: ecommendations in this Repo
- Page 50 and 51: efusal of medical treatment, subjec
- Page 52 and 53: consents to or refuses medical trea
- Page 54 and 55: (2) Autonomy, dignity and privacy(a
- Page 56 and 57: (3) Presumption in favour of preser
- Page 58 and 59: 2CHAPTER 2ADVANCE CARE DIRECTIVES,
- Page 60 and 61: 2.07 The Commission recommends that
- Page 62 and 63: 2.12 The Council of Europe‘s 2009
- Page 64 and 65: donor understands the effect of mak
- Page 66 and 67: should be referred to the High Cour
- Page 68: 2.30 Another protection of importan
- Page 71 and 72: dentist 3psychologist 4social care
- Page 73 and 74: should be defined to include, but i
- Page 75 and 76: chemotherapy or dialysis, antibioti
- Page 77 and 78: Similarly, Power argues that there
- Page 79 and 80: assist either health care professio
- Page 81 and 82:
approach met with broad approval an
- Page 83 and 84:
Practice on Advance Care Directives
- Page 85 and 86:
3.48 The Commission recommends that
- Page 87 and 88:
(other than charges and directions
- Page 89 and 90:
3.64 The Commission concurs with th
- Page 91 and 92:
advance care directive involves a r
- Page 93 and 94:
eyond question that a court or a do
- Page 95 and 96:
close relationship that can exist b
- Page 97 and 98:
3.86 The Commission recommends that
- Page 99 and 100:
care directive. 105 The Commission
- Page 101 and 102:
the wishes or making their own deci
- Page 103 and 104:
sustaining treatment or whether the
- Page 105 and 106:
(b) for the guidance of persons, in
- Page 107 and 108:
omission.‖ 5 The Supreme Court in
- Page 109 and 110:
who acted in good faith could be pr
- Page 111 and 112:
or health professional cannot, for
- Page 113 and 114:
follow an advance care directive is
- Page 115 and 116:
the Board can erase the name of a n
- Page 117 and 118:
5.07 The Commission recommends that
- Page 119 and 120:
directive would be likely to be enf
- Page 121 and 122:
Ensuring that the wishes of the mak
- Page 124 and 125:
APPENDIX DRAFT MENTAL CAPACITY (ADV
- Page 126 and 127:
Mental Health Act 2001Powers of Att
- Page 128 and 129:
―basic care‖ includes, but is n
- Page 130 and 131:
(3) The scope of an advance care di
- Page 132 and 133:
(ii) the name and address of that p
- Page 134 and 135:
(b) Without prejudice to section 5(
- Page 136 and 137:
paragraph 3.13 (palliative care), p
- Page 138 and 139:
Subsection (2) implements the recom
- Page 140 and 141:
www.lawreform.ie