Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles.
Mr Justice Hayden, expresses himself very clearly, without resorting to legal jargon, and he tends to explain 'what the question(s) at the heart of the decision is'.
He also does what is logical: he informs himself about clinical situations and clinical prognoses by asking the clinicians, and he obtains 'an indirect opinion about the patient's 'likely choices'' by asking the family and friends of the patient. Then, he settles in his own mind 'issues of certainty', considers the law itself, and arrives at his conclusion and ruling. At least, that is what he does, so far as I can judge by reading his words.
This case has been widely covered by the media, and after the above, I think it can be summed up with Mr Justice Hayden's words, as reported by the media:
“There will undoubtedly be people who for religious or cultural reasons or merely because it accords with the behavioural code by which they have lived their life prefer to, or think it morally right to, hold fast to life no matter how poor its quality or vestigial its nature. ... Their choice must be respected. ... But choice where rational, informed and uncoerced is the essence of autonomy. ... It follows that those who would not wish to live in this way must have their views respected too.”