Judge ruled doctors should withdraw treatment for Merseyside Police officer on life support
A judge has ruled that doctors should withdraw treatment for a Merseyside Police officer left on life support following a road accident
A judge has ruled that doctors should withdraw treatment for a Merseyside Police officer left on life support following a road accident
Paul Briggs suffered a severe brain injury in a motorcycle crash in July 2015.
Since then, the dad of one has been in a minimally conscious state in hospital. His family have always argued that he should be able to die with dignity.
During a Court of Protection Hearing in Manchester, Paul's wife Lindsey described his continual treatment as a 'living hell"
She said "I think he would see it as torture, just as hell, that everything he believes"
A High Court judge sitting in the Court of Protection has agreed that medical treatment can lawfully be withdrawn
Mr Briggs is a veteran of the Gulf War and has been a dedicated police officer who lived an active life.
Today Mr Justice Charles sitting in the Court of Protection has agreed that it is not in Mr Brigg’s best interests for treatment to continue, and that it is lawful for treatment to be withdrawn and for Mr Briggs to be moved to a hospice to be given palliative care in his final few weeks.
However, the lawyers acting for Mr Briggs through the government appointed Office of the Official Solicitor have since requested permission to appeal against the decision,
It means Mr Briggs’ treatment is likely to be preserved until the New Year, when a decision will be made as to whether the appeal can go ahead.
Mr Briggs’ wife Lindsey said: “The court case was the hardest thing we have ever had to do but we did it for Paul, to honour his wishes. We are grateful that Mr Justice Charles has shown compassion towards Paul, has respected his wishes and values and has understood what Paul would have wanted."
"He has been able to place himself in Paul's situation, and for that we will be forever thankful. We are glad we have had the opportunity to give evidence about Paul to the Court. It was an honour."
"We are therefore hugely disappointed that the decision is to be appealed and that we will be put through yet more heartache."
“The past 18 months have been extremely distressing and traumatic. All our lives have been turned upside down."
"We have been living in darkness and despair - from when Paul had the crash in the first place, through all the uncertainty, having to watch him suffer and be in pain, and all the endless procedures and complications."
"Paul has been artificially kept alive by medical intervention from the outset."
“Paul was such a selfless, kind and charitable person. He dedicated his career and his life to serving others and protecting the public with commitment, vigour and sheer enthusiasm, both on and off duty. We know that he would have wanted us to pursue this case for him.
“When we were first notified of Mr Justice Charles' decision that it was not in Paul's best interests for his life sustaining treatment to be continued, we were relieved for Paul."
“We are therefore dismayed to learn that the decision may be appealed. We feel overwhelming despair and sorrow, but we know we have to try to somehow cope and continue for Paul. Given this continued uncertainty, Christmas will now not be a peaceful occasion for us.
Mathieu Culverhouse, a specialist lawyer at Irwin Mitchell, representing Lindsey, said: “The time since Paul’s collision has been extremely difficult for Lindsey and Paul’s family and from the outset they have wanted to ensure that his wishes are respected."
"They firmly believe that continuing treatment is not in Paul’s best interests given his previously expressed wishes, his injuries and his current condition and prognosis.
“After considering all of the evidence, hearing from medical experts and the clear and powerful evidence from the family, the judge agreed that treatment could lawfully be withdrawn."
"The judge made this decision after taking into account recent guidance from the Supreme Court. He weighed up the competing principles of the very strong presumption in favour of preserving life and the need to respect what Mr Briggs himself would have decided if he was able to do so.
“In his judgment, the judge stated: “I am sure that if Mr Briggs had been sitting in my chair and heard all the evidence and argument he would … not have consented to further … treatment”. The judge concluded by saying that “this means that the court is doing on behalf of Mr Briggs what he would have wanted and what he would have done for himself … if he was able to do so.”
“The family is disappointed that the decision is to be appealed, which will prolong their situation at such a difficult time of year.
“The next few weeks will obviously be very difficult for Lindsey and the family and we will continue to support them at this sensitive time. They can at least have some comfort in knowing that the Court at this stage has agreed that this course of action is in Mr Briggs’ best interests. We will now await the Court’s decision on whether permission to appeal will be granted.”