Guest Post: Jenny Kitzinger, Celia Kitzinger and Jakki Cowley
In a recent landmark judgment in the Court of Protection (Briggs v Briggs  EWCOP 53), a judge authorised withdrawal of life-prolonging treatment from a minimally conscious patient with potential for further recovery. Our article in Journal of Medical Ethics addresses the implications of this judgment, highlighting its potential to strengthen compliance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and the delivery of person-centred care.
How this will work in practice is another question.
We have supported families (CK and JK) and represented patients (JC) in a series of cases – several of which have reached court – in which families sought treatment withdrawal and doctors refused. We know many families who believe that their brain-injured relative would not want to receive on-going life-prolonging interventions. It usually takes years for families to come to this view and even longer to communicate it to doctors. Some health care professionals can be dismissive – or even hostile – when families speak up. Even when doctors acknowledge that a patient will never regain consciousness, some have ethical objections to withdrawing treatment from a clinically stable patient. It feels, they say, like ‘euthanasia’.
An ethical imperative to give treatment is experienced even more acutely, by some doctors, when the patient may make some degree of ‘progress’ – perhaps recovering consciousness and the ability to interact with others. The treating clinician in the Briggs case was firmly of the view that it would be unethical to withdraw treatment from a patient whose level of consciousness might improve over time. This view was not supported by the Court of Protection judgment.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.