Wife of brain-damaged pastor loses life-support treatment fight
A judge has ruled that medics can lawfully stop providing life-support treatment to the man after a trial in the Court of Protection.
The wife of an evangelical pastor left with “very significant” brain damage after suffering a stroke while undergoing kidney dialysis 18 months ago has lost a life-support treatment fight.
A judge has ruled that medics can lawfully stop providing life-support treatment to the man, who is in his early 50s and in a coma, after a trial in a specialist court.
Bosses at a health authority in Manchester, who have responsibility for the man’s care, said treatment should end.
Specialists said the man – who has an underlying kidney problem – had no awareness, said there was “no scope” for rehabilitation, and said continuing treatment was not in his best interests.
The man’s wife, and other relatives, disagreed and wanted treatment to continue.
She said her husband’s religious faith was such that he would want his “life to be sustained” for as long as possible.
Relatives said death could only be decided by an “act of God”.
Mr Justice Hayden had overseen the case in the Court of Protection, where judges consider cases involving people who lack the mental capacity to make decisions, in London, earlier this week.
He ruled that the man cannot be identified in media reports of the case but said the Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust, which is based in Salford, Greater Manchester, had responsibility for the man’s care and had begun legal action.
The judge, who also oversees cases in the Family Division of the High Court in London, said he had “no doubt” that the man’s family was “deeply rooted” in “Pentecostal beliefs”.
Relatives believed that the man had “already experienced miracles” and would “rather suffer” and “hold out for the will of God”, the judge said.
“He was a man who lived his life by the Pentecostal sword and would have wanted to die by the Pentecostal sword in accordance with his Pentecostal beliefs,” said Mr Justice Hayden.
“(He) would have chosen to continue his life-sustaining treatment even in the face of coma.”
The judge said an individual’s wishes and feelings “weighed heavily”.
But he said they were “not to be regarded as determinative”.
He said the man continued to need regular dialysis – which could “achieve nothing” and was “burdensome and futile”.
Doctors feared that if treatment continued his death might be “uncontrolled”.
They said if treatment ended, the process leading to death could be managed and his family could be with him when he died.
Mr Justice Hayden said the trust’s application to end treatment was “well founded”.
“There is, in truth, no alternative,” the judge added.
“Everything possible has been done.”
The judge said medics should delay ending treatment until relatives have been given a chance to gather and say their goodbyes.