A High Court judge has ruled that life-support treatment should not be withdrawn from a brain-damaged, minimally conscious woman, despite pleas from her family. Relatives wanted nutritional treatment to be withdrawn from the 52-year-old woman who they claim would not wish to live “a life dependent on others”. The court was told that, in early 2003, the woman had suffered profound brain damage as a result of viral encephalitis. She was comatose for several weeks and was considered to be in a persistent vegetative state, however, doctors later determined her to be in a minimally conscious state.
A lawyer, appointed by the High Court to represent the woman’s rights, opposed the relatives' pleas arguing that while she is in a vegetative state, she is “otherwise clinically stable”. The woman’s local health authority also opposed the relatives' application, claiming that the woman's life did not lack “positive elements”. Experts informed the court that there was evidence to suggest that the woman had an “awareness of herself and her environment”. The judge claimed that, following weighing up the benefits and drawbacks relating to the woman, the woman’s current life was not overwhelmingly negative and life-sustaining treatment should not be withdrawn. The lawyer representing the woman said that if life-sustaining treatment were withdrawn from the woman, a murder charge would be sought.
Duncan Lewis’ family law solicitors provide confidential advice with effective legal representation on a range of family law issues. The department comprises a professional, efficient team possessing a wealth of legal experience.