In this case, the media are once again deliberately misreporting the outcome of the case as judgment in favour of a person's right to die.
There is no 'right to die' - indeed there is only the exact opposite - but this case centres on whether a terminally ill person had the capacity to make a decision to end life sustaining medical treatment.
The Court ruled in her favour, with the ultimate consequence being hat she will die from the lack of treatment, somewhat sooner than she may otherwise have done.
This case however may have avoided Court had the anonymous woman granted a Lasting power of Attorney for Health and Care decision, which would have removed the uncertainty as to her wishes and authorised and trusted person or family member to communicate her wishes to the medical practitioners treating her, with the decision being binding on them.
The woman’s daughter had told how her mother was “completely incapacitated” and had asked Mr Justice Hayden to allow doctors to stop providing “clinically assisted nutrition and hydration”. Medical experts said the woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was in a “minimally conscious state”, however the judge concluded that it would be disrespectful to the woman to keep her alive in a manner she would “regard as grotesque”. Granting the application on Thursday, he said the focus of the case was her right to live the last of her days in the way that she would have wished.