BLB Solicitors
  • +01225 755656
  • enquiries@blbsolicitors.co.uk
BLB Solicitors
  • +01225 755656
  • enquiries@blbsolicitors.co.uk
  • Home
  • Services for You
    • Conveyancing Solicitors
    • Leasehold Solicitors
    • Property Dispute Solicitors
    • Divorce, Family Law and Mediation
    • Lifetime Planning and Wills
    • Probate and Estate Administration
    • Equity Release Solicitors
    • Retirement Property Conveyancing
    • Personal Injury Compensation
    • Medical Negligence Solicitors
  • Services for Business
    • Commercial Property
    • Commercial Property Disputes
    • Corporate & Commercial Legal Advice
    • Estate Management Solicitors
  • BLB Solicitors Locations
    • Almondsbury Solicitors
    • Bath Solicitors
    • Bristol Solicitors
    • Bradford on Avon Solicitors
    • Swindon Solicitors
    • Trowbridge Solicitors
  • About Us
    • Our Team
    • Working for BLB
    • BLB Solicitors – How we work
    • Making Payments to BLB Solicitors
    • Instructing BLB Solicitors
    • Terms of Business
    • Complaints Policy
    • Interest Policy
  • Blog
  • Contact Us

Home » A decision of life or death

Medical Negligence
May 29th, 2015

At BLB Solicitors, our goal is simple – to deliver you clear, practical legal advice and cost-effective solutions. We hope you enjoy exploring our Blog. If you can’t find what you’re looking for, please do contact us.

A decision of life or death

BLB were recently asked for advice by a Muslim family whose elderly relative had suffered a severe stroke and had been hospitalised for 4 months. As a result of the stroke the relative was unable to speak or swallow and had difficulties moving the right side of her body. Following a chest infection compromising her lung function a decision was taken by the clinicians to stop feeding the lady (via her gastric tube), withdraw continued drug therapy and cease routine observations. Having cared for their relative whilst in hospital and due to their religious beliefs the family wanted the hospital to continue treatment so as to prolong her life rather than have her pass away. Fortunately after meeting with the clinicians concerned the family were able to persuade the hospital to review their decision and allow their relative to return home with the benefit of care in the community.

This case is similar in a number of respects to the case of R (on the application of Tracey) v Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust which was heard by the Court of Appeal on the 17th June 2014. This case concerned the issue of consulting patients when taking decisions involving life sustaining treatment (in this case whether to attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation or CPR) and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights which requires respect for private and family life. The leading judgment said :-

“A decision as to how to pass the closing days and moments of one’s life and how one manages one’s death touches in the most immediate and obvious way a patient’s personal autonomy, integrity, dignity and quality of life.”

The Court rejected the argument that there is no need to involve the patient if CPR is considered to be futile, it is important for patients to know such an important clinical decision has been made and, further, the patient may want to have a second opinion.

This decision imposes an obligation on clinicians to seek to discuss “Do not attempt CPR” decisions with patients unless to do so would cause the patient physical or psychological harm. Doctors cannot avoid raising the matter with patients just because the doctor thinks the patient would find it distressing.

The Judgment does not directly deal with the position of patients who lack capacity. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 requires decisions for those who lack capacity to make the decision for themselves to be made in the individual’s best interests. When deciding best interests, a clinician is required to take account “if practicable and appropriate to consult them” the views of anyone, amongst others, engaged in caring for the individual or interested in their welfare. In other words, if clinicians cannot talk to the patient then they should talk to the family. Confidentiality may, occasionally, be an issue but it should not become an artificial barrier to discussion or, even worse, an excuse.

For further advice on this subject contact David Gazzard on 01793 615011.

Image by Deb under a Creative Commons Licence

David Gazzard
Request a Call Back

Recent Articles

  • Sodium valproate: the continuing scandal
  • Swindon medical negligence solicitor speaks out over report’s stark findings
  • Promising new test for sepsis wins big award
  • Sepsis compensation claim success
  • Medicines Review, to include Sodium Valproate, is underway

Newsletter Sign-up

* indicates required

Share this article

You may also like...
  • Apr 24th, 2018
    MHRA change licence for Sodium Valproate
    Read Article
  • Nov 22nd, 2018
    Sepsis compensation claim success
    Read Article
View All Related Articles
Get in-touch today
Contact Form

Left Column

Right Column

Centre

 
Sending
  • Bristol Solicitors

    0117 905 5308
  • Bath Solicitors

    01225 462871
  • Bradford on Avon Solicitors

    01225 866541
  • Swindon Solicitors

    01793 615011
  • Trowbridge Solicitors

    01225 755656
  • Almondsbury Solicitors

    0117 905 5308
Authorised & Regulated by Solicitors Regulation Authority (No. 636644)
©2025 BLB Solicitors | Terms | Privacy | Legal