Court of Appeal to hear urgent end-of-life case after NHS clinicians withdraw patient’s life‑sustaining treatment without court approval
23 February 2026 Issued by: Christian ConcernToday, Monday 23 February, the Court of Appeal will hear a critical case concerning an NHS patient whose life‑sustaining treatment was withdrawn without court authorisation and against the wishes of his family, who are being supported by the Christian Legal Centre.
The hearing will take place at 10:30am in Court 68 before Lord Justice Newey, Lady Justice Asplin and Lord Justice Baker, under case reference CA‑2026‑000361 (Re: RB).
The family had spoken to the media about the case only for the Court of Protection to then bring in a ‘transparency order’ that criminalises any revealing of the patient’s identity.
What happened
In April 2025, the patient known as RB was admitted to an NHS intensive care unit after being found collapsed at home following a severe stroke. Although he suffered significant brain damage, his neurological condition showed some improvement in the months that followed, and he was successfully weaned off a ventilator by the summer.
The patient lives with diabetes and relies on dialysis twice a week in order to survive. Despite this, clinicians informed his family that, because of the extent of his brain injury, they believed it was in his “best interests” for life‑sustaining treatment to be withdrawn.
At one stage, a senior consultant reportedly told the family, “I regret keeping him alive at the start.”
From the summer of 2025 onwards, the family repeatedly requested access to medical records, imaging, and the opportunity to obtain an independent neurological opinion to confirm or challenge the clinicians’ assessment.
These requests were resisted for months. Attempts by the family to arrange for the patient to be discharged home, transferred to a care facility, moved to a neuro‑rehabilitation unit, or even relocated from intensive care to a specialist renal ward were refused.
Both sides had agreed to take part in a professional mediation process to explore whether a consensus could be reached over the patient’s treatment. As a date for mediation was being finalised, the family were suddenly summoned to a meeting on 6 February.
During that meeting, consultants informed them that a “clinical decision” had been taken to stop dialysis immediately and to provide only end‑of‑life care, despite the absence of any agreement with the family and without making an application to the courts.
In previous case law, including guidance from the Supreme Court in An NHS Trust v Y [2019] A.C. 978, judges have made clear that where there is disagreement between families and clinicians about whether a patient should receive life‑sustaining treatment, the matter must be brought before the Court of Protection.
Treatment may only be withdrawn if the family agrees, or if a court authorises it. The family argue that the decision to withdraw dialysis without obtaining such authorisation was therefore unlawful.
Following the withdrawal, the family, supported by the Christian Legal Centre, took the unusual step of initiating their own urgent court application asking a judge to determine whether it remains in the patient’s best interests to continue receiving life‑sustaining treatment. Normally, these applications are brought by NHS bodies rather than by families.
Shortly after legal action began, the NHS disclosed thousands of pages of medical notes, including a second opinion from a senior specialist in prolonged disorders of consciousness, Professor Lynne Turner-Stokes.
In a letter that appeared to have been intended for internal use only, the specialist advised clinicians to describe their decision purely as “clinical,” avoiding references to “best interests” so as not to trigger court scrutiny.
The letter further encouraged the hospital to document such decisions as having been made collectively by a multidisciplinary team, suggesting that this approach would protect individual clinicians from the possibility of legal challenge or professional consequences.
According to the family’s legal representatives, this correspondence reinforces their concern that the withdrawal of treatment was framed in a way designed to evade the court process that the law requires.
They argue that the distinction between a “clinical decision” and a decision to withdraw life‑saving treatment is artificial and has no legal basis; ending a patient’s life by withdrawing essential treatment can only be lawful if agreed with the family or authorised by a court.
This case raises significant concerns about due process in end‑of‑life decisions, particularly in circumstances where families have expressed clear opposition and the legal framework provides specific protections requiring court oversight.
Today’s hearing will determine whether the family can proceed with their legal challenge and whether the Court of Appeal will order the reinstatement of life‑sustaining treatment while the dispute continues. The decision is expected to have far‑reaching implications for how NHS trusts manage disagreements with families in future cases involving life‑and‑death clinical decisions.
Andrea Williams, Chief Executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “When there is a dispute about a patient’s best interests, the law requires an application to the Court of Protection. Clinicians do not have the power to end a patient’s life by withdrawing treatment simply because they prefer their own view over the family’s. It is vital that the courts uphold these safeguards, or families will be left powerless in the most vulnerable moments of their lives.”
