Wife calls for change in assisted dying law as husband’s treatment withdrawn

The wife of a man in a vegetative state whose life-sustaining treatment can now be withdrawn following a court ruling has said the law on assisted dying should be changed.

The woman, whose husband is known only as LD for legal reasons, told a court that vulnerable people should be allowed an “instant and peaceful death” which was “quick, painless and dignified” during a legal battle over his treatment.

LD has been in a specialist hospital for more than two years after suffering severe brain damage following a heart attack which caused a “prolonged disorder of consciousness”.

In March, the NHS integrated care board which manages LD’s care applied to the Court of Protection, a specialist family court, for permission to stop the clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) keeping him alive, claiming it was not in his “best interests”.

In a hearing last month, the court in London heard that LD’s family and friends were divided on whether the treatment should be withdrawn, with his wife weeping as she said she hoped “the law regarding euthanasia can be debated very soon”.

In a ruling published on Friday, Mrs Justice Theis said she had concluded with “profound sadness” that treatment could be withdrawn, meaning LD is expected to die within three weeks.

She said: “The evidence demonstrates from those who have actual experience of this that discontinuing CANH will enable LD to die with dignity, in the least discomfort, in the greatest peace and with those who want to be with him to be able to do so.”

LD was described as a “kind and gentle” man who “lived his life to the full” and “loved animals and nature”, but who was now in a permanent vegetative state with no prospect of recovery.

The court heard that while some members of his family wished for the nutrition to be withdrawn, others, including his wife, were opposed as death would not be instant.

Holding back tears while reading a statement to the court in June, LD’s wife described withdrawing CANH as death “by starvation” and called for a change to the law on assisted dying.

She said: “The proposal to end (LD’s) life by starvation is inhumane, torturous, tragic and painful.”

She continued: “I find myself helpless in many ways but I can only say what (LD) and I believe – hopefully it will make a difference.

“I hope that the law regarding euthanasia can be debated very soon to allow an instant and peaceful death for vulnerable people like (LD) who are incapable of making the decision for themselves.

“Death must be quick, painless and dignified.

“I have faith and sincerely believe the system will make a change in the law which now only allows for the withdrawal of CANH as a method of withdrawing life.”

A friend of LD, who also opposed the withdrawal of treatment, said in their statement that there was “no harm in leaving (LD) to die a natural death”, but that euthanasia would be a “more acceptable alternative”.

They said: “There could well be a vote on euthanasia early in the next Parliament.

“I plead for the court to take this into consideration on whether or not to allow the withdrawal of CANH.”

They added that assisted dying would “allow the hospital to provide a quicker and less traumatic way” of ending life.

But LD’s sister said treatment should be withdrawn as it “gives a chance for a peaceful and dignified journey to death”, adding that her brother “would want a quick, painless passing”.

Another friend also said that LD “would not want to continue to exist as he has” and that withdrawing nutrition would allow him to die with “dignity and kindness”.

Barrister Parishil Patel KC, representing the Official Solicitor on LD’s behalf in court, said in written submissions that the case was “extremely sad” and that there was “no easy decision”.

He said: “There are many in society, like (LD’s wife), who regard the unavailability of a legal route to euthanasia in these circumstances as a significant and immoral defect in the law.”

The barrister told the court: “The Official Solicitor, in the end, having reflected upon the evidence supports the application. There is no better alternative, we say, for (LD).”