Hospital allowed to withhold lifesaving treatment from brain-damaged man

Court grants permission to the family, despite arguing that could be improved and that their religion requires that everything be done to keep him alive

a court has authorized a hospital group to hold live-saving treatment to a man severely brain damaged if his condition deteriorates, it has emerged.

the wife and two adult children of a Muslim 55 years, known as L, argued that continued to improve and it would be a mistake for clinicians the Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust maintains ventilation or resuscitation in case of cardiac or respiratory arrest. The man can not be named for legal reasons.

But Judge Moylan, sitting in the courtyard of the protection Monday in London, has determined that the balance was "totally in favor" of a declaration to the Judgment of the lawful processing. It said that sounded harsh, but the treatment can prolong the death of L and his life is not extended "significantly".

"cause death is characterized by a series of damaging interventions in treatment no realistic prospect of producing a profit," he said.

The judge refused permission to appeal to the family, but you can always ask the appellate court to intervene.

• Family
• L, Greater Manchester, has been fighting against a decision by the confidence that he was beyond recovery after cardiac arrest in July which resulted in brain damage. His doctors had asked for a guarantee of the court they had to revive or put on a ventilator to become his life-threatening condition.
Family

The

s had already told the court that he did not think it was hopeless recovery and their religion, Islam, demanded that everything must be done to keep alive.

In August, the family said he was told during the trial, after a dramatic video shows that suggested he might not be in a vegetative state. The images showed the man responds to requests and orders. A neurologist says that I was in a minimally conscious state and could not exclude the possibility of going further, and communication, even verbal.

But trust argued that improving the state of the reflected s family remained so small that active resuscitation is unnecessary and could lead to a death unworthy and traumatic. Back to the court after a pause, lawyers argued that trust is not always in the best interest of L's to receive active resuscitation.
reported that their treatment should be limited to what the doctors say it is reasonably necessary "to preserve their dignity and to relieve the pain and discomfort you might feel."

Find best price for : --hospital----Greater----Pennine--