Editing Life support (section)

=== Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland (1993) ===
The ''Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland'' case was an English [[House of Lords]] decision for a 17-year-old comatose survivor of the [[Hillsborough disaster]]. He had been artificially fed and hydrated via life support for about three years, but he had not shown any improvement while in his persistent vegetative state. His parents challenged the therapeutic life support at the [[High Court of Justice|High Court]] and wanted permission to end life support for their son. The Court decided that his "existence in a persistent vegetative state is not a benefit to the patient," but the statement did not cover the innate value of human life. The court interpreted the sanctity of life as only applicable when life could continue in the way that the patient would have wanted to live their life. If the quality of life did not fall within what the patient valued as a meaningful life, then sanctity of life did not apply. The accuracy of a proxy's decision about how to treat a patient is influenced by what the patient would have wanted for themselves. However, just because the patient wanted to die did not mean the courts would allow physicians to assist and medically kill a patient. This part of the decision was influenced by the case ''[[Rodriguez v British Columbia (AG)|Rodriguez (1993)]]'' in which a British Columbian woman with [[amyotrophic lateral sclerosis]] could not secure permission for assisted suicide.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Godlovitch|first=Glenys|last2=Mitchell|first2=Ian|last3=Doig|first3=Christopher James|date=2005-04-26|title=Discontinuing life support in comatose patients: an example from Canadian case law|journal=CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal|volume=172|issue=9|pages=1172–1173|doi=10.1503/cmaj.050376|issn=0820-3946|pmc=557062|pmid=15851705}}</ref>