The law has a crucial role to play in deciding whether to withhold treatment from critically ill patients, a leading judge has claimed.
Speaking at a London conference, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss said the area was “a minefield” for the courts, and the “most difficult” for judges to consider.
“Cases where the court has been asked to decide whether life-saving treatment ought to be administered are often the most difficult cases a judge will ever have to deal with, not because the law is confused or difficult but because of the emotions of the people involved in the case,” she said.
“From birth until death, and most things in between, medical advances have transformed our expectations. Life-saving, life-prolonging technologies have made a profound difference to the treatment options for the terminally ill.”
Dame Elizabeth presided over the case of Luke Winston-Jones, whose parents disagreed with doctors that he should not receive any life-prolonging treatment due to his rare genetic disorder.
“Doctors sometimes disagree with patients and their relatives, and patients themselves may disagree with their family and friends. It is often the role of the law to set limits on what is and is not appropriate,” she added.
In the case of Winston-Jones, Dame Elizabeth gave doctors permission to withhold treatment. Addressing delegates at the Withholding Treatment conference, she argued that judges had to apply the “best interests test” in these cases, and that their role was to set boundaries and reach a resolve when families and medical staff disagreed.
“Everybody who is involved has their own views on what is in the best interest of the individual,” she said. “It is the role of the judge to draw those views together to resolve the conflict in those views and provide a best way forward.”
The parliamentary process is too slow and is often catching up with events, Dame Elizabeth added.
“It has therefore become the role of judges to develop the law and give liberal interpretation of the statute when circumstances demand it.”
