BRITAIN: Civil rights groups hailed as a "victory for common sense" a High Court ruling yesterday upholding the right of a paralysed woman to refuse medical treatment. At the same time, some anti-euthanasia groups expressed "profound concern" about the possible effect of the ruling on future public policy.
The 43-year-old woman, paralysed from the neck down when a blood vessel burst in her neck in February last year, lay in her hospital bed as Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, the senior judge in the Family Division, delivered her ruling via a video link from Birmingham. The decision was also relayed to the High Court in London where lawyers for the paralysed woman, identified only as Miss B, watched on a video link.
The case did not establish a legal precedent, but it was the first in Britain in which a competent patient had gone to court to uphold the well-established legal right to refuse treatment and have the ventilator keeping her alive turned off.
Miss B, who described her quality of life as "unbearable", welcomed the judgment as "balanced and well thought-out". Her solicitor, Ms Frances Swaine, said afterwards: "It's entirely up to her how to choose - I am sure she will make that decision in her own good time."
The hospital which contested the case on ethical grounds indicated it would not appeal and Miss B will transfer to another hospital soon. However, she has agreed not to ask doctors to turn off the ventilator immediately and will undergo a period of rehabilitation to establish whether her quality of life can be improved.
Ruling in favour of Miss B, Dame Elizabeth said the hospital had misinterpreted her right to refuse treatment as evidence of mental incapacity. However, she added: "I hope she will forgive me for saying, diffidently, that if she did reconsider her decision she would have a lot to offer the community at large."
The Voluntary Euthanasia Society said it hoped no patient would have to go to court to fight for their right to refuse treatment, adding: "This case has confirmed that patient choice must be at the centre of all treatment decisions."
The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children insisted the case had not heard properly all the legal issues. "Public policy must not be formed on the basis of individual cases of this kind where medical evidence is not properly examined or challenged. On the face of it, the decision could radically change the doctor-patient relationship."