Frightening news from the UK.
The British Supreme Court has ruled that doctors and families can revoke a patient’s life support and withhold food and water without his or her consent and without a court hearing.
The decision is particularly concerning — because it comes from a nation that is already pushing towards euthanasia. In the UK, with its government-run health care system, doctors and hospitals are routinely giving up on patients they believe are too far gone, even children such as Charlie Gard or Alfie Evans. In such instances they are pressuring families to allow life support to be revoked from patients they believe have no chance at life — even though other doctors and medical professionals disagree.
The ruling from the high court in Britain also comes after new reports that hundreds of patients are being euthanized in Belgium including three children. Leading pro-life organizations will likely see this ruling us another step towards euthanasia and pressuring patients to end their lives in assisted suicide.
The ruling essentially allows doctors and families to guess what a patient might ant if no advance directive is in place — allowing patients to have their life support and food and fluids terminated and their lives taken even if that may not be the decision they would have wanted.
End-of-life care can be withdrawn from patients in a permanent vegetative state without consulting a judge, the UK’s highest court ruled today. The Supreme Court upheld a decision that a man with an extensive brain injury, who can be identified only as Mr Y, should be allowed to die without his family going before a judge.
The ruling means that, in cases where families and doctors are in agreement, medical staff will be able to remove feeding tubes without applying to the Court of Protection.
The Supreme Court ruled on the case of a 52-year-old financial analyst, was from June 2017, was in a prolonged disorder of consciousness (PDOC) after suffering a cardiac arrest as a result of coronary artery disease.
PDOC covers patients remaining in a coma, vegetative state and minimally conscious state after a brain injury.
Experts agreed it was highly improbable that Mr Y would re-emerge into consciousness and – even if he did – he would have profound cognitive and physical disability and always be dependent on others.
Mr Y had not drawn up any advance decision to refuse treatment but his family were firmly of the view that he would not want to be kept alive given the poor prognosis.
The anti-euthanasia group Care Not Killing has expressed “concern” and “disappointment” that the Supreme Court has removed an important safeguard from brain-damaged patients today. – READ MORE