JUDGMENT SUMMARY - BURKE V GMC
28 Jul 2005 02:15 PM
The Court of Appeal this morning (Thursday 28 July 2005) handed down
its judgment in the case of R (Burke) v the General Medical Council.
The judgment of the Court is to allow the GMC's appeal, and to set
aside the declarations made by the judge.
In view of the considerable public interest the case has attracted,
it is very important that the Court's decision should not be
misinterpreted or misunderstood.
In particular, the fact that the appeal has been allowed does not
mean that Mr. Burke has lost.
Mr. Burke suffers from a congenital degenerative brain condition
known as spino-cerebellar ataxia, and is confined to wheelchair. The
Court was impressed by his dignified presence in court. He took
proceedings because he does not wish to die of hunger and thirst, and
wished to be assured that before his condition reached its final
stage, artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) would not be
withdrawn.
The evidence showed that Mr. Burke would at some point in the future
require ANH. It also showed that he remain able to make rational
decisions about himself and his treatment up until a period very
shortly before his death. In legal terms, he is "competent". In these
circumstances, the Court is satisfied that if Mr. Burke wishes to
continue to receive ANH in the circumstances he envisages, he will do
so and that it would be unlawful for it to be withdrawn.
The Court has also decided that Mr. Burke's position is protected by
the law as it stands, and that the guidance given in the GMC's
document Withholding and Withdrawing Life-prolonging Treatment: Good
Practice in Decision Making issued in August 2002 (the Guidance) is
lawful. It is therefore neither necessary nor appropriate to made
declarations relating the Guidance.
The Court is also of the view that the case has been allowed to
expand inappropriately to embrace issues which have nothing to do
with Mr. Burke's case. Had Mr. Burke been well advised, he would and
could have sought reassurance from the GMC as to the purport of its
Guidance or from the doctors who were treating him as to the
circumstances, if any, in which ANH might be discontinued. Had this
occurred, the proceedings would have been unnecessary.
The Court wishes to draw attention to the final paragraph of its
judgment. Having decided that the Guidance is lawful, the Court takes
the view that the GMC has a responsibility to ensure that it is
understood and implemented at every level of the NHS. Patients, and
in particular those who suffer from a disability, are entitled to
have confidence that they will be treated properly and in accordance
with good practice, and that they will not be ignored or patronized
because of their disability.
The judgment will be posted on the Court Service website on Thursday
28 July 2005 at the following link:
(http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/judgments/judg_home.htm) and also
placed on the British and Irish Legal Information Institute website
(BAILII): http://www.bailii.org/databases.html/ew.
News Release issued by
The Master of the Rolls
Communications Office of the Lord Chief Justice