A terminally ill man today won his legal challenge over official guidance to doctors that he feared could lead to him being allowed to die against his wishes.
Leslie Burke, 44, who has a degenerative brain condition, was concerned that his wish to go on living until he dies naturally could be overridden under current General Medical Council (GMC) guidelines.
Lawyers said today's ruling by a senior high court judge gave helpful and extensive guidance on how questions on sustaining life through artificial nutrition and hydration should be decided.
In a case of widespread importance to chronically sick people, Mr Burke had asked a senior judge to declare that the guidance could breach his "right to life" under the European Convention on Human Rights, and could result in "inhuman and degrading" treatment.
Mr Justice Munby ruled today that although the bulk of the GMC guidelines was a "compelling piece of work", which should greatly reassure patients and their relatives, he took issue in a limited number of respects with what the guidance said about the law.
After describing a number of those areas, the judge ruled: "It follows, in my judgment, that the claimant has in principle established his right to relief."
After the ruling, Laurence Oates, official solicitor to the supreme court, said in a statement: "The judgment gives helpful and extensive guidance in the context of our rights under the European Convention on Human Rights on how questions of sustaining life through artificial nutrition and hydration should be decided.
"In doing so, it provides reassurance to all who may find themselves in the unfortunate position which Mr Burke will eventually face. All of us who are involved in these matters will wish to give this judgment further careful consideration.
"As identified by the judge, I shall continue to act for patients unable to take these decisions for themselves when these issues are to be decided by the court."
During the hearing of Mr Burke's case earlier this year, his QC, Richard Gordon, had argued that the guidance was confused and unlawful.
Mr Gordon told Mr Justice Munby that it might allow doctors to decide at some time in the future, despite Mr Burke's wishes, to withhold artificial feeding and hydration when his condition inevitably deteriorated.
Mr Burke, who suffers from cerebellar ataxia, fears reaching the point where, unable to communicate, he is denied food and water and takes two to three weeks to die of starvation or thirst.
The GMC contested the case, arguing that the guidance had been misinterpreted, and said there was no reason for the court to intervene.
GMC lawyers argued that there was nothing that would permit or encourage doctors to withhold food and water contrary to Mr Burke's expressed wishes.
Nothing would be done to cause him pain and distress amounting to degrading treatment, or show lack of respect for his private life - such conduct by a doctor would be plainly contrary to the guidance, the GMC said.
Mr Burke, speaking from his home, said: "I'm just so pleased that it's gone in my favour. It just seems like a great weight lifted off my shoulders. I wasn't confident that I would win. I was just so anxious before the judgment. I can't tell you what it means to me."
He added: "Anybody at all could be in the same situation as me so this has far-reaching consequences. A doctor could decide to withdraw hydration and nutrition and effectively starve a person until they die.
"Further down the line, I won't be able to communicate my wishes either way and this could just be withdrawn without my consent. I would be fully conscious the whole time and it could take two or three weeks to die."
Mr Burke said the verdict "gives the balance of power back to the person involved or the next of kin of that person".
Bert Massie, chairman of the Disability Rights Commission, which supported the case, said: "Until now doctors had the power to refuse or withdraw life-prolonging treatment and to disregard a disabled person's wishes based, in some cases, on a set of assumptions that disability equals a very poor quality of life.
"This judgment provides genuine protection for disabled people with serious long-term conditions. They want health professionals to do as much as possible to preserve life - as they would do for non-disabled people."
Dr Michael Wilks, who chairs the British Medical Association's medical ethics committee, said: "A decision to withhold or withdraw treatment from a patient who is dying or seriously ill is one of the most difficult and complex decisions a doctor can make. It is therefore absolutely essential for patients and their families, as well as for the health professionals providing care, that guidance be as clear as possible.
"Some legal aspects of decision-making in this area remain unclear and the BMA is hopeful that today's judgment will help clarify outstanding legal ambiguities."
The BMA would study the judgment to see whether its guidance to doctors needed to be amended, he said.
