Family and NHS trust disagree over treatment for unidentified man who suffered brain damage after a heart attack
The family of a man left in a vegetative state after a heart attack has made an eleventh hour appeal for doctors to do all they can to keep him alive as they await a vital court ruling.
Tomorrow, the court of protection in London will be asked to rule in a dispute over whether it is in "the best interests" of the severely brain-damaged man, who is from the Greater Manchester area, to continue to receive life-saving treatment if his condition deteriorates.
Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust claim it is not in the best interests to offer the man, known only as L, ventilation or resuscitation if his condition worsens and he suffers "a life-threatening event", such as another heart attack. But his family disagree and say they, not the trust, must be given the right to decide on his care.
"L's wife and other family members believe that it is too early to give up and hope that his condition will improve," said Helen Lewis, a specialist in clinical negligence at Manchester law firm Pannone, who is representing the family. "It has been less than five weeks since L developed brain damage following a cardiac arrest and the family want to ensure that he is given all possible life-saving medical treatment.
"They want to be fully involved in the decision-making process so proper regard can be given to how L lived his life and what they believe he would have wanted".
Debra Powell, appearing for the trust, said it was unclear how long L could be expected to live, adding that it could be months or even longer.
Mr Justice Ryder, the judge hearing the initial case, described L as a vulnerable adult who lacked the capacity to make decisions about his treatment.
"L's family do not agree with the trust's position and wish all possible life-saving medical care to be provided," Ryder said, adding that because the case raises important issues "of serious medical treatment" it should be heard in public. However, court orders prevent the identification of L, his family members, the hospital treating him and clinicians looking after him.
The trust had sought an interim declaration from the courts that it was not in L's best interests to receive life-saving treatment if it became necessary before tomorrow's hearing. But an agreement was reached that clinicians would attempt to resuscitate L and use ventilation if required, pending a ruling in the courts. Legal experts are drawing comparisons between L's case, hingeing on his family's appeal for his right to life, and that brought by Locked-in syndrome sufferer Tony Nicklinson, who last week lost his high court battle for the legal right to end his life when he chooses.
A second victim of Locked-in syndrome, referred to as "Martin", 47, who could not be identified, said through his lawyers that he felt "even more frustrated and angry" after losing his challenge to the legal ban.
Three judges referred to the "terrible predicament" of the two men and described their cases as "deeply moving and tragic". The ruling in L's case is expected on Tuesday.