The issue in The Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v YD & Ors [2025] EWCOP 31 (T3) was the potential withdrawal of treatment from a 60-year-old man, YD, in a “permanent vegetative state”.
YD was in simultaneous relationships with two women, JG and MB, and both they and the Official Solicitor opposed the application. JG did not consider that YD was religious, but was “deep into his spirituality, how things are, why they are” and that he he took it seriously; the fact that he agreed that she should call an ambulance after she had found him collapsed in October 2024 “proves to me that he chose conventional medicine and wants to heal as much as he can” [36].
MB was equally convinced that YD would not want treatment to be withdrawn, and told the Court of Protection:
“YD would like the opportunity to heal and not be forced to end life, he would choose to leave when he is ready and naturally or when the body chooses to give up, he would choose life over death. We used to talk about end of life pathways when I was a Health Care Assistant and YD would say that’s not right – a person will pass when they’re good and ready” [43].
A friend, NT, told the Court that “… the most important things to YD were his studying and the ability to practise his spirituality”. NT considered the things YD enjoyed in life were “Finding out new things; finding out and sharing new things; new knowledge; new books; new viewpoints and challenging viewpoints; he liked to challenge me…” [44].
There was no significant dispute between the parties about the relevant legal framework, and they agreed that Articles 2, 8 & 9 ECHR were likely to be engaged [58]; the Equality and Human Rights Commission had stated in respect of Article 9:
“Importantly, this right protects a wide range of non-religious beliefs including atheism, agnosticism, veganism and pacifism. For a belief to be protected under this article, it must be serious, concern important aspects of human life or behaviour, be sincerely held, and be worthy of respect in a democratic society” [59].
Theis J, Vice-President of the Court, refused the application. The evidence of JG, MB and NT had confirmed independently
“many common features about YD’s wishes and beliefs. In particular, regarding the depth of his interest in the spiritual world and his limitless curiosity about such matters that he held strong beliefs about. YD has long held beliefs about the healing power of the mind, body and soul and to understand and, if required, push established boundaries based on his learning and understanding. From their descriptions YD was compassionate, private person who was a fiercely independent thinker about a wide range of issues, in particular regarding the spiritual world and healing” [83].
Further, YD’s
“longstanding interest in the healing power of the mind, spirit or soul would very likely be values that would inform his decision if he had capacity. The changes that have been observed he would regard as positive signs and that he had the potential to make further changes. These are likely to be relevant factors that would inform his decision if he had capacity, and would be likely to be a factor in him wishing and feeling that he wanted to continue to be provided with CANH [clinically-assisted nutrition and hydration]. YD would also likely factor in, due to his longstanding beliefs in such matters, that others believe they are in communication with him” [84].
In her judgment, the burdens did not outweigh the benefits and she refused the application: “There is a strong presumption in favour of preserving life which, in my judgment, having carefully evaluated the evidence in this unusual case, the Trust has not discharged”. [87].
**********
Rosalind English has posted a much fuller analysis on the UK Human Rights Blog: Patient in permanent vegetative state to be kept alive – Court of Protection, likewise Alex Ruck Keene on Mental Capacity Law and Policy: “There are more things in heaven and earth that are dreamt of in the philosophy of NHS treatment” – a Court of Protection story.