Wicks Elizabeth
Leicester Law School, University of Leicester, UK.
Med Law Rev. 2019 May 1;27(2):330-338. doi: 10.1093/medlaw/fwy043.
In An NHS Trust and others v Y and another, the Supreme Court was asked to address the question of whether a court order must always be obtained before clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH), which is keeping alive a person with a prolonged disorder of consciousness (PDOC). This case note explores the Court's decision to dispense with the need for such a court order and analyses that important change in approach from the perspective of the right to life protected in Article 2 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as well as in the broader context of end of life decision-making.
在国民保健服务信托机构及其他人诉Y及另一人案中，最高法院被要求解决一个问题，即在对处于长期意识障碍（PDOC）的人进行临床辅助营养和水合治疗（CANH）以维持其生命之前，是否必须始终获得法院命令。本案例注释探讨了法院决定无需此类法院命令的情况，并从《欧洲人权公约》（ECHR）第2条所保护的生命权角度以及更广泛的临终决策背景下分析了这一重要的方法变化。
