The court considered whether to order continuation of hydration and releated treatment for a patient in a minimally conscious state.
Held: ‘I am sure that if Mr Briggs had been sitting in my chair and heard all the evidence and argument he would, in exercise of his right of self-determination, not have consented to further CANH treatment that his best interests are best promoted by the court not giving that consent on his behalf.
This means that the court is doing on behalf of Mr Briggs what he would have wanted and done for himself in what he thought was his own best interests if he was able to do so.’
 EWCOP 53
England and Wales
Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.573097