The family of Robert Barnor, who died after St Helier Hospital unlawfully withdrew his life‑sustaining dialysis, has forced a dramatic retreat by the Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine (FICM) after threatening urgent High Court action.
Following a threat of legal action by Mr Barnor’s daughter, Lesley Townsend, supported by Christian Legal Centre, the national professional body for intensive care doctors removed its controversial public announcement, deleted social media posts, and issued a replacement statement acknowledging that the Court of Appeal’s decision in Townsend v Epsom and St Helier NHS Trust constitutes binding law which must be understood and applied accordingly. The Court of Appeal has held that it is illegal for the NHS to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment from a patient without an authorisation from the Court.
The pre-action letter from Mrs Townsend’s lawyers complained that an “announcement” published by FCIN following the Court’s ruling effectively encouraged doctors to ignore it, putting patients’ lives at risk.
Despite promptly withdrawing and reversing that guidance, FICM has denied that its original announcement encouraged unlawful conduct or put patients at risk.
FICM is currently a department of the Royal College of Anaesthetists, expected to become an independent Royal College of Intensive Care Medicine later this year. Until recently, FICM described itself on its web-site as “the professional and statutory body for the specialty of Intensive Care Medicine, the doctors who lead Critical Care services and Advanced Critical Care Practitioners”, but after its status was queried in Mrs Townsend’s pre-action letter, has amended that description to say:
“The Faculty is the professional body for the specialty of Intensive Care Medicine. Our members include the doctors who lead and deliver critical care services, Advanced Critical Care Practitioners, and Critical Care Pharmacists.”
Court of Appeal ruled hospital acted unlawfully
On 8 March 2026, the Court of Appeal ruled that St Helier Hospital acted unlawfully when it withdrew Mr Barnor’s dialysis on 11 February 2026 without his family’s agreement and without authorisation from the Court of Protection.
The court confirmed that no NHS body may withdraw life‑sustaining treatment from a mentally incapacitated patient unless either the entire family and all clinicians are in agreement, or the Court of Protection has approved the decision.
The judges made clear that hospitals are not permitted to pre‑empt court proceedings by unilaterally withholding or withdrawing treatment on so‑called clinical grounds.
They further confirmed that every decision relating to the care and treatment of a mentally incapacitated adult, including withdrawal of life‑sustaining treatment, must be made strictly in accordance with the statutory best‑interests test, and that there is no exemption or carve‑out for clinical judgement.
Mr Barnor died on the morning of 27 February 2026, just hours before the Court of Protection was due to consider the family’s urgent application to reinstate dialysis.
Family shocked by unlawful treatment
The family say that they consistently observed Mr Barnor displaying clear signs of responsiveness during his time in intensive care. He tracked people with his eyes, squeezed his wife’s hand, blinked on request, reacted to music played at his bedside, and attempted to point to indicate that he needed assistance. The family also report that he was able to lift all of his arms and legs.
When the family sought to show clinicians video recordings of these responses, the Trust imposed a ban on recording inside the intensive care unit.
Judicial review threat forces FICM retreat
Following the Court of Appeal’s ruling, FICM published an “announcement” on 12 March 2026 which the family says misrepresented the legal effect of the judgment and falsely reassured clinicians that they did not need to change their clinical approach.
The family issued a formal pre‑action letter threatening judicial review, arguing that FICM had unlawfully endorsed commentary suggesting the Court of Appeal’s decision was not binding and could be disregarded pending appeal.
In its legal response dated 3 April 2026, FICM confirmed that it had removed the announcement from its website, deleted associated social media posts, and circulated revised messaging to its members. FICM acknowledged that the Court of Appeal’s ruling in the Townsend case is the most recent appellate authority on the issues addressed and must therefore be understood and applied as binding law.
However, FICM denied that its original announcement encouraged unlawful conduct and declined to issue clear, practical guidance instructing clinicians that where there is disagreement, life‑sustaining treatment must not be withdrawn without court approval.
Allegations of misleading and unlawful guidance
The family argues that by endorsing commentary critical of the judgment, FICM effectively encouraged clinicians to continue practices which the Court of Appeal had ruled unlawful. This includes withdrawing life‑sustaining treatment without family agreement, failing to apply the legally mandated best‑interests test, and proceeding to withdraw treatment before the Court of Protection has considered the matter.
The family threatened an urgent claim for judicial review arguing that FICM, as a professional body performing public functions, acted unlawfully by issuing and promoting material that misrepresented binding law and risked encouraging non‑compliance in life‑and‑death clinical decisions. The family relies on established Supreme Court authority confirming that public bodies must not issue guidance or statements that encourage unlawful conduct.
Statement from the family of Robert Barnor
Mrs Lesley Townsend, Mr Barnor’s daughter, said:
“Three senior judges confirmed that my father’s life was taken unlawfully. Yet even after that ruling, powerful medical bodies tried to water down the law behind the scenes.
It should not take the threat of judicial review for doctors’ leaders to accept they must obey binding court judgments. FICM has now removed its misleading guidance, but only because it was forced to.
We would much rather be grieving in peace. Instead, we have had to fight again, not just for our father, but to protect other families from going through the same ordeal.”
Mr Barnor’s wife, Olive Barnor, said:
“We’re not surprised at FICM previous stance. There’s a culture surrounding critical care that would shock the general public. Our experience of doctors in ICU is they’re not there to save lives these days, just as one doctor told us flippantly “I make decisions to end lives every day.”
“From the shocking experience of trying and failing to protect Robert’s life from those very people whose job it was to save it, we are convinced that this culture comes not from doctors themselves, but is being imposed on them from above by medical bureaucrats.
“We would encourage all families to be extremely vigilant when loved ones and friends go into an ITU, and urge all good doctors to be courageous in defending the first principles of their profession from this culture of death.”
‘A warning shot for the NHS’
Andrea Williams, Chief Executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said:
“This retreat is a warning shot across the NHS. National medical bodies cannot reinterpret or dilute the law protecting the sanctity of life simply because they find it inconvenient.
The law is clear. Life‑sustaining treatment cannot be withdrawn behind closed doors where families object. It should never have required litigation in the Court of Appeal to re-affirm this well-established principle. Now that the Court of Appeal has made the law crystal clear, the NHS and professional medical authorities must help doctors to comply, not encourage them to ignore it.”