Ratio Decidendi
It is lawful to withdraw life-sustaining treatment (including artificial nutrition and hydration) from a patient in a persistent vegetative state where it is in the patient's best interests, provided the court's prior approval is obtained. The withdrawal is properly characterised as an omission, not a positive act.
Fapte
Anthony Bland was a victim of the Hillsborough disaster. He suffered catastrophic brain damage and had been in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) for over three years with no prospect of recovery. The NHS Trust sought a declaration that it would be lawful to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration.
Rezumatul hotărârii
The House of Lords unanimously declared that withdrawal of treatment would be lawful. The sanctity of life principle was not absolute and had to be balanced against the patient's best interests. Since Bland had no awareness and no prospect of recovery, continued treatment served no therapeutic purpose. The law drew a distinction between acts and omissions: withdrawing treatment was an omission, not a positive act of killing.
Citate cheie
"The question is not whether it is in the best interests of the patient that he should die. The question is whether it is in the best interests of the patient that his life should be prolonged by the continuance of this form of medical treatment or care."
— Lord Goff
Tratament ulterior
Followed in many end-of-life cases. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 now provides the statutory framework for best interests decisions.