The Court of Protection of England & Wales has declined to grant an application by Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust to withdraw clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) from a 60-year-old man, YD, who is in a permanent vegetative state following a brain haemorrhage in October 2024.
YD is being cared for at a specialist neuro-rehabilitation unit and, according to medical consensus, has no realistic prospect of regaining consciousness or awareness. The Trust applied for permission to withdraw CANH on the basis that treatment conferred no therapeutic benefit and continuing care was not in his best interests.
The application was opposed by YD’s two partners, both closely involved in his daily care, and by the Official Solicitor representing YD. YD’s partners gave evidence that he held a strong faith in spiritual healing, valued perseverance in adversity, and would have wanted treatment to continue. No valid advance decision refusing treatment existed.
Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the court must decide best interests by weighing medical evidence, the patient’s beliefs and values, family perspectives, and the balance of burdens and benefits. Although the courts recognise a presumption in favour of preserving life, this may be displaced where ongoing treatment is futile or excessively burdensome, as established in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789.
Mrs Justice Theis, Vice-President of the Court of Protection, refused the Trust’s application and ruled for the continuation of CANH. The Court found that the presumption in favour of life had not been displaced, as the Trust had not demonstrated that withdrawal of treatment was in YD’s best interest. The Court also gave significant weight to family testimony as the partners’ evidence about YD’s belief in spiritual recovery and perseverance was compelling.