Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993]
Share
Airedale National Health Service Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789 deals with the ethical and legal issues surrounding the termination of medical treatment for a patient in a persistent vegetative state, who cannot provide informed consent.
Anthony Bland sustained severe injuries in the Hillsborough disaster at the age of seventeen and a half, rendering him in a persistent vegetative state. Despite being able to breathe independently, Bland required life support machines to be kept alive. After over two years with no signs of improvement, doctors sought approval to remove the feeding tube that sustained him.
The central issue was whether it is legally permissible to withdraw life-extending treatment from a patient in a persistent vegetative state who cannot provide informed consent. The question revolved around the best interests of the patient, considering the lack of potential improvement and the absence of the patient's ability to consent or refuse treatment.
The House of Lords held that, in cases where there is no prospect of improvement and continuation of treatment is not in the patient's best interests, it is lawful to withhold life-extending treatment. While doctors have a duty to act in the best interests of their patients, it does not necessarily require the prolongation of life at any cost. The court clarified that, in this specific instance, the removal of the feeding tube, which sustained Bland, was not considered an unlawful act that caused or accelerated death.
The decision established the principle that, in situations where there is no potential for improvement, the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment can be legally justifiable if it aligns with the best interests of the patient. This landmark case contributed to the legal framework surrounding end-of-life decisions and the delicate balance between preserving life and respecting the dignity and best interests of individuals in such profound medical conditions.
Anthony Bland sustained severe injuries in the Hillsborough disaster at the age of seventeen and a half, rendering him in a persistent vegetative state. Despite being able to breathe independently, Bland required life support machines to be kept alive. After over two years with no signs of improvement, doctors sought approval to remove the feeding tube that sustained him.
The central issue was whether it is legally permissible to withdraw life-extending treatment from a patient in a persistent vegetative state who cannot provide informed consent. The question revolved around the best interests of the patient, considering the lack of potential improvement and the absence of the patient's ability to consent or refuse treatment.
The House of Lords held that, in cases where there is no prospect of improvement and continuation of treatment is not in the patient's best interests, it is lawful to withhold life-extending treatment. While doctors have a duty to act in the best interests of their patients, it does not necessarily require the prolongation of life at any cost. The court clarified that, in this specific instance, the removal of the feeding tube, which sustained Bland, was not considered an unlawful act that caused or accelerated death.
The decision established the principle that, in situations where there is no potential for improvement, the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment can be legally justifiable if it aligns with the best interests of the patient. This landmark case contributed to the legal framework surrounding end-of-life decisions and the delicate balance between preserving life and respecting the dignity and best interests of individuals in such profound medical conditions.
