Comment on call for review of court intervention in cases of Persistent Vegetative State

12.00.00am UTC (GMT +0000) Thu 18th Jan 2007

Following the statement by the husband of a woman in a persistent vegetative state who was given an experimental treatment following a court ruling that she would not have wanted the drug, Dr Evan Harris, MP and member of the BMA Medical Ethics Committee, said:

"In those cases of confirmed or agreed Persistent Vegetative State (PVS), where any further interventions - including experimental ones - have been deemed to be clinically inappropriate, where treating doctors and relatives are in agreement that existing treatment (including artificial nutrition and hydration) should be withdrawn, the courts have generally agreed and it may be appropriate, to no longer require court approval and rely instead on a second independent clinical opinion.

"However where there is the potential for improvement in the condition with a treatment - even an experimental one - it is appropriate for the patients best interests to be represented before a judge in order to reduce the potential conflict of interest for relatives and the hospital or care facility concerned. However where a relevant advance directive by the patient exists, this should be respected."