Update to main text para 13.1, page 376:  Introduction

There have been significant developments in this area in recent months.

The most important is Briggs: a policeman and Gulf War veteran, injured in a traffic accident, remained in a minimally conscious state; his wife brought an application seeking withdrawal of clinically assisted artificial nutrition and hydration. Charles J’s first judgment[1] held that Mrs Briggs was entitled to bring her application for withdrawal under s21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.  This conclusion may have far reaching consequences for both s21A applications and serious medical treatment cases where a standard authorisation is in place. The judgment is currently under appeal, and dealt with in an update on chapter 5. In the later substantive judgment[2], Charles J granted Mrs Briggs’ application, applying the best interest test to conclude that had Mr Briggs been able to decide the matter for himself, he would not have consented to receive continued treatment by clinically assisted artificial nutrition and hydration.

Update to main text para 13.11, page 399

Mr Briggs[1] was agreed to be in a minimally conscious state; he was clinically stable and not in need of any invasive treatment. His treating team believed that he should be moved to a rehabilitation centre, where he could be monitored and potentially progress to a higher level of consciousness. His family felt that he should be transferred to a hospice, no longer provided with CANH, and allowed to die as peacefully and painlessly as possible. 

Update to main text para 13.19, page 416:  

In a fascinating speech, ‘A Matter of Life and Death’, given at Oxford on 11 October 2016,[1] Baker J addressed the courts’ current approach to whether or not to permit withdrawal of clinically assisted artificial nutrition and hydration from a patient in a prolonged disorder of consciousness.

Update to para 6.129, page 221: Conclusion and Future Legislation

The Law Commission published its final Report on Mental Capacity and Deprivation of Liberty on 13 March 2017, along with a draft Bill. The full report is available here and a summary of the Law Commission’s conclusions are set out below. As anticipated, the Law Commission focus was on creating a more workable process, whilst placing P at the heart of decision making.

Update to main text para 13.11, page 399: Withdrawal of treatment in MCS        

Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v RY & CP [016] EWHC 3256 (Fam)

Decided only months after Briggs and Baker J’s Oxford speech (see main text at para 13.13.), this unsuccessful application for withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment (namely, deep suctioning to keep patent a tracheostomy tube and thus RY’s air way) is the near mirror image of Briggs in factual terms. It is also a salutary illustration of the almost unique challenge MCS poses to those evaluating the burdens and benefits of life-sustaining treatment, given our very limited understanding of the life experienced by a patient in a prolonged disorder of consciousness.

Update to para 2.5, page 33

New footnote 6:

White v Philips [2017] EWHC 386 (Ch)

The legal test as to testamentary capacity is a common law one and the classic statement of the test, being found in Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR5 QB 549, is almost 150 years old. Since judicial application of the test occurs in contested, adversarial proceedings, the evidential burden of proof and the manner in which it shifts are significant and were live issues in this case. All of these distinguishing factors combine to make this fascinating decision of HHJ Saffman of academic interest to those concerned with the application of sections 1, 2 and 3 of the MCA 2005 to medical treatment decisions in the Court of Protection.