The importance of making Advance Decisions

 In Elderly/Vulnerable Client

Disclaimer: LawSkills provides training for the legal industry and does not provide legal advice to members of the public. For help or guidance please seek the services of a qualified practitioner.

Minimally conscious – removal of life sustaining treatment – Briggs v Briggs [2016] EWCOP 53

The Court of Protection has ruled that it was not in Paul Briggs’ best interests to continue with life-sustaining treatment, taking into account both his ‘past’ and ‘present wishes’ in accordance with s4 (6) (a) Mental Capacity Act 2005. Case Summary from LawSkills | Private Client specialist trainers

In July 2015 Mr Briggs was involved in a head on collision and suffered severe brain damage and was diagnosed as being in a ‘minimally conscious state’, meaning that he had some degree of consciousness. This case is significant as Mr Briggs was not in a ‘permanent vegetative state’ which means that a person does not have an awareness of themselves or their environment. The term ‘minimally conscious’ is significant as Mr Briggs could, according to an independent expert, with rehabilitation have some positive experiences in the future, although he would still have profound disabilities.

Mr Briggs’ wife Lindsey contended that he would regard life-prolonging treatment in these circumstances as ‘torture’. Paul Briggs’ treating clinician believed that he should be given a chance to make a recovery. Mrs Briggs disagreed and despite an independent expert’s view that profoundly brain injured patients can become happy with their restricted lives, she argued that even the best possible outcome projected by the independent expert would for Mr Briggs, not be the quality of life he would consider worthwhile, according to his previously expressed wishes.

The LawSkills Monthly Digest

Subscribe to our comprehensive Monthly Digest for insightful feedback on Wills, Probate, Trusts, Tax and Elderly & Vulnerable client matters

Not complicated to read  |  Requires no internet searching |  Simply an informative pdf emailed to your inbox including practice points & tips

Subscribe now for monthly insightful feedback on key issues.

All for only £98 + VAT per year.

Lawskills Digest

This case highlights the importance of making Advance Decisions (‘AD’) or Lasting Powers of Attorney for Health and Welfare (‘LPA’) which would have allowed Mr Briggs to set out in advance his wishes which would have been legally binding or assigned the decision making powers to his wife Lindsey as his Attorney. Unfortunately, Mr Briggs had not made either an AD or LPA.  In this situation the decision making power was with the medical team who usually consult with the patient’s family but are not legally bound by what they wish. If there is a dispute, as in this case, matters have usually to be decided by the Court.

After the Official Solicitor confirmed that he would not appeal the case, Mr Briggs was transferred to a hospice where he was given palliative care and sadly died in January 2017.

LPA & Deputyship issues - Webinar

from Gill Steel in association with LiPS Legal

When: 13 July 2017 1pm-2pm

This webinar will build on practitioners’ knowledge of creating and administering the financial and health affairs of clients through examining current issues in dealing with lasting powers of attorney and deputyship matters.

To book and find out more about the event check LiPS Legal website

Recordings available after the event

FREE monthly newsletter

Wills | Probate | Trusts | Tax  | Elderly & Vulnerable Client

  • Relevant learning and development opportunities
  • News, articles and LawSkills’ services
  • Communications which help you find appropriate training in your area
Recommended Posts
Gill Steel Blog pref