Tony Bland

Last updated

Anthony David Bland (21 September 1970 – 3 March 1993) was a supporter of Liverpool F.C. injured in the Hillsborough disaster. He suffered severe brain damage that left him in a persistent vegetative state as a consequence of which the hospital, with the support of his parents, applied for a court order allowing him to "die with dignity". As a result, he became the first patient in English legal history to be allowed to die by the courts through the withdrawal of life-prolonging treatment including food and water.

Contents

Hillsborough disaster

Bland was an 18-year-old Liverpool supporter who travelled with two friends to Sheffield Wednesday's Hillsborough football ground for an FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest on 15 April 1989. During the game, a crush behind the Liverpool goal ensued due to the police losing control of the situation outside the ground. A crush had formed at the outer gates, and the Liverpool fans were eventually let in through a side gate by order of Chief Superintendent Duckenfield. However, he failed to close the tunnel access first and thousands more Liverpool fans were sent down this tunnel into pens 3 and 4 which were already overcrowded due to the failure of police officers and club stewards to direct the fans to the appropriate areas. This resulted in the death of 94 people on that day, and a 95th victim in hospital a few days later.

Although Bland survived the initial crush, he had suffered severe brain damage and eventually became the disaster's 96th victim on 3 March 1993, aged 22, after being in a coma for nearly four years. He never regained consciousness and a legal ruling in November 1992 allowed doctors to withdraw his treatment at the request of his family, as there had been no sign of improvement in his condition and the doctors treating him advised that there was no reasonable possibility that he would ever emerge from his persistent vegetative state, and was unlikely to survive more than five years.[ citation needed ]

Injuries and prognosis

Bland suffered serious injuries in the crush at the Leppings Lane terrace. He suffered crushed ribs and two punctured lungs, causing an interruption in the supply of oxygen to his brain. As a result, he sustained catastrophic and irreversible damage to the higher centres of the brain, which had left him in a persistent vegetative state (PVS).

He was transferred to the care of J. G. Howe, a consultant geriatrician and neurologist at the Airedale General Hospital near his home in Keighley. He had some experience in treating those with PVS. Several attempts were made by Howe and his team, along with Bland's father, sister and mother, to try to elicit some response from him and for some signs of interaction. However, all attempts failed. He showed no sign of being aware of anything that took place around him.

EEG and CT scans revealed that whilst the brain stem remained intact, there was no cortical activity. Indeed, scans subsequently shown to the court showed more space than substance in the relevant part of his brain. His body was being kept alive by artificial nutrition, hydration and constant care. The medical professionals treating him stated that there was no reasonable possibility that he would ever emerge from his vegetative state.

Law in England and Wales prior to Bland

Selective non-treatment of newborn babies

Prior to Bland, English case law on the non-treatment of patients was restricted to newborn babies. There have been several recorded cases of disabled neonates being "allowed to die". A leading case was that of Re B (a minor) . [1] That case involved a baby with Down syndrome complicated by intestinal obstruction which, if left untreated without surgery, would be fatal. The parents felt that it would be in the child's best interests if she were left to die. This was a decision upheld by Lord Justice Dunn at first instance, who lauded the parents' decision as being "an entirely reasonable one".

The matter reached the Court of Appeal who overturned the decision. Any such decision had to be made in the best interests of the child and that the prognosis was that the child would have a reasonable quality of life. However, in other cases, for example Re C (a minor) (wardship: medical treatment) [2] and Re J (a minor) (wardship: medical treatment), [3] this test has been used to determine that doctors can choose not to treat or provide life prolonging treatment.

Doctor's potential liability

In R v Arthur [4] a baby was born in 1981 with uncomplicated Down Syndrome and was rejected by the parents. Leonard Arthur, a paediatrician, wrote in his notes that the "Parents do not wish it to survive. Nursing care only." The baby died 69 hours later. During the trial, the defence provided evidence that the child was not physically healthy, resulting in a reduced charge of attempted murder, for which Arthur was acquitted.

This demonstrated that a doctor who deliberately withdrew life-prolonging treatment under any circumstances, and where the patient subsequently died, could be charged with murder. There was a subtle exception. If a patient suffered complications but the doctors felt that it would serve no purpose to apply additional treatments, such as antibiotics to fight infection, as might happen in a case of PVS and the patient subsequently died as a result of the complication then they were not liable under the criminal law. Theoretically, however, they could still find themselves being sued for negligence by the family of the deceased.

In August 1989, four months after Bland was injured, Howe contacted Popper, the Sheffield coroner, who was both legally and medically qualified. He informed Popper of the plan to withdraw all treatment including food and water. This decision had been taken following full consultation with the family and in accordance with their wishes. Howe later said:

It is difficult now [in 2006] to convey my shock on receiving his intimidating reply. Having stated that he [the Coroner] had no jurisdiction over any living person, he advised that I would risk a murder charge should I withdraw treatment. He made it clear that he "... could not countenance, condone, approve or give consent to any action or inaction which could be or could not be construed as being designed or intended to shorten or terminate the life of this young man. This particularly applies to the withholding of the necessities of life, such as food and drink." He requested a reply by return indicating that I had understood his opinion, and whether I would withdraw treatment.

The Coroner advised Howe to contact his medical defence society and the Regional Health Authority and copied his letter to the Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police (the investigating force), the local regional Health Authority solicitor and Howe's medical defence society. The following day Howe was visited by the police and told that he would be charged with murder if he withdrew treatment and Bland died.

Following the obtaining of the legal advice, which concurred with that of the coroner, the Airedale National Health Service Trust, with the support of Bland's family and Howe, made an application to court to withdraw all life-prolonging treatment. As Bland was unable to speak for himself and was, for legal purposes, deemed an incompetent, the Official Solicitor was assigned as his guardian ad litem. The Official Solicitor opposed the Trust's application because if the Trust were allowed to pursue the actions proposed by Howe, it would amount in law to the crime of murder.

Case

First instance

Airedale NHS Trust applied to the courts for a declaration to the effect that:

This declaration, apart from the latter part of the declaration[ clarification needed ] (which was deemed inappropriate[ clarification needed ]), was granted. The court considered that it was in the patient's best interests for treatment to be withheld and that its discontinuance was in accordance with good medical practice.

Acting on Anthony Bland's behalf, the Official Solicitor appealed this decision.

Court of Appeal

Expert evidence

Such was the importance of the case, and its legal ramifications, that it attracted a number of expert witnesses to give evidence. These included Professor Bryan Jennett who, along with Professor Fred Plum, coined the term 'persistent vegetative state' in 1972. Professor Jennett expressed the view that it would be in accordance with good medical practice in the case of Anthony Bland to withdraw the nasogastric artificial feeding. He considered that there was no benefit to continue with the treatment as there was no prospect of recovery of cognitive function.

Other experts in the field of neurology gave evidence. Amongst those was Professor Peter O'Behan who examined Bland on behalf of the Official Solicitor. Like the experts who gave evidence for the Airedale Trust, Prof. O'Behan's evidence was pessimistic. He stated:

I am confident that from my knowledge of other patients, neuropsychology, previous cases from the literature and from animal experimentation that the patient has no awareness nor can he suffer pain or experience pleasure. Further the prospect of improvement can also confidently be answered since based on what we know of the degree of damage to his brain, the comparison of his case with those recorded in the literature (particularly considering the nature of his damage and the duration of his illness) and the type of systems and signs he exhibits, there is no hint or hope or any prospect of improvement.

On 21 December 1993, Bradford coroner James Turnbull recorded a verdict of accidental death on Tony Bland. [5] The same verdict was recorded on the other 95 victims (94 who died on the day of the disaster and a 95th who died a few days later) at the main Hillsborough inquest in March 1991, much to the dismay of the bereaved families who had been hoping for a verdict of unlawful killing and for manslaughter charges to be brought against the police who had been patrolling the match. [6] On 26 April 2016, during the second inquest on all 96 victims, a verdict of Unlawful Killing was issued on all 96 victims. [7]

In the aftermath of Bland's death, a priest and anti-abortion campaigner, Fr James Morrow, started a legal challenge to have the doctor who withdrew his treatment charged with murder, but this was rejected by the High Court in April 1994.

On 28 June 2017, the Crown Prosecution Service announced that David Duckenfield, the police commander, would be charged with manslaughter by gross negligence in relation to the deaths of the other 95 victims, but a charge could not apply in relation to Bland because he died outside of the time limit that was applicable for the time of the alleged offence. [8]

The case brought up a number of moral and legal issues. As a result, the number of previous cases referred to is extensive.

This case is another which delegated to the Bolam standard. This was a test introduced by the courts in Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee . The essence of the Bolam standard is such as to remove liability from medical staff if the treatment they have provided to a patient under the particular circumstances would have been followed by a responsible body of medical personnel, exercising due skill and care in the process. Under Bolam, a doctor need only show that he was following an accepted medical practice – even if that practice was only followed by a minority of medical professionals. This was one of the arguments put forward on behalf of Dr Howe; that it would be intolerable if Dr Howe was charged with murder for following what he submitted to be generally regarded as good medical practice.

A long-time critic of the Bland case, Dr Jacqueline Laing argues that the implications of the judicial decision deserve revisiting given recent Freedom of Information Act requests revealing financial incentives and staggering compliance[ clarification needed ] [9] in rolling out the 2008 NHS End-Of-Life Care strategy. She warns that Bland has been dangerously extended by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 so that novel third parties now have power to remove treatment. [10]

Andrew Devine

Tony Bland was one of two people injured at Hillsborough to have been diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state. The other was 22-year-old Andrew Devine, from the Liverpool area, who also suffered massive brain damage as a result of being deprived of oxygen due to crush injuries and in the immediate aftermath of the disaster his parents were warned by doctors that he was likely to die within a few months. In 1994, five years after the disaster and one year after the death of Tony Bland, Devine's family claimed to have seen him following a moving object with his eyes. By March 1997, Devine was able to communicate to others using a touch-sensitive buzzer to answer "yes" or "no" to questions asked. [11] By the time of the disaster's 20th anniversary in April 2009, it was reported that he continued to show signs of awareness around him but his condition had barely improved since he was first reported to have emerged from the coma 12 years earlier. [12]

Related Research Articles

Hillsborough disaster Human crush during the 1989 FA Cup semi-final

The Hillsborough disaster was a fatal human crush during a football match at Hillsborough Stadium in Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England, on 15 April 1989. It occurred during an FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest in the two standing-only central pens in the Leppings Lane stand allocated to Liverpool supporters. Shortly before kick-off, in an attempt to ease overcrowding outside the entrance turnstiles, the police match commander David Duckenfield ordered exit gate C opened, leading to an influx of even more supporters to the pens. This led to a crowding in the pens and the crush.

Karen Ann Quinlan American medical-legal case

Karen Ann Quinlan was an American woman who became an important figure in the history of the right to die controversy in the United States.

Life support

Life support refers to the treatments and techniques performed in an emergency in order to support life after the failure of one or more vital organs. Healthcare providers and emergency medical technicians are generally certified to perform basic and advanced life support procedures; however, basic life support is sometimes provided at the scene of an emergency by family members or bystanders before emergency services arrive. In the case of cardiac injuries, cardiopulmonary resuscitation is initiated by bystanders or family members 25% of the time. Basic life support techniques, such as performing CPR on a victim of cardiac arrest, can double or even triple that patient's chance of survival. Other types of basic life support include relief from choking, staunching of bleeding by direct compression and elevation above the heart, first aid, and the use of an automated external defibrillator.

A persistent vegetative state (PVS) or post-coma unresponsiveness (PCU) is a disorder of consciousness in which patients with severe brain damage are in a state of partial arousal rather than true awareness. After four weeks in a vegetative state (VS), the patient is classified as in a persistent vegetative state. This diagnosis is classified as a permanent vegetative state some months after a non-traumatic brain injury or one year after a traumatic injury. Today, doctors and neuroscientists prefer to call the state of consciousness a syndrome, primarily because of ethical questions about whether a patient can be called "vegetative" or not.

William Hammesfahr is an American neurologist practicing in Florida, who specializes in treating stroke victims. He became a public figure during his involvement in the Terri Schiavo case, during which he examined Schiavo and testified on behalf of her parents.

Minimally conscious state

A minimally conscious state (MCS) is a disorder of consciousness distinct from persistent vegetative state and locked-in syndrome. Unlike persistent vegetative state, patients with MCS have partial preservation of conscious awareness. MCS is a relatively new category of disorders of consciousness. The natural history and longer term outcome of MCS have not yet been thoroughly studied. The prevalence of MCS was estimated to be 112,000 to 280,000 adult and pediatric cases.

<i>Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee</i>

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582 is an English tort law case that lays down the typical rule for assessing the appropriate standard of reasonable care in negligence cases involving skilled professionals such as doctors. This rule is known as the Bolam test, and states that if a doctor reaches the standard of a responsible body of medical opinion, they are not negligent. Bolam was rejected in the 2015 Supreme Court decision of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board.

An omission is a failure to act, which generally attracts different legal consequences from positive conduct. In the criminal law, an omission will constitute an actus reus and give rise to liability only when the law imposes a duty to act and the defendant is in breach of that duty. In tort law, similarly, liability will be imposed for an omission only exceptionally, when it can be established that the defendant was under a duty to act.

Sir Stephen Brown, GBE is a retired British judge. He was a Lord Justice of Appeal and the President of the Family Division of the High Court of England and Wales.

Airedale General Hospital Hospital in West Yorkshire, England

Airedale General Hospital is an NHS district General Hospital based in Steeton with Eastburn, West Yorkshire, England and is operated by the Airedale NHS Foundation Trust. Airedale was opened for patients in July 1970 and officially opened by the Prince of Wales on 11 December of the same year. The hospital covers a wide area including Keighley, Skipton and parts of the Yorkshire Dales and eastern Lancashire. The hospital has links for Neurosurgical emergencies with Leeds General Infirmary. The hospital provides approximately 324 beds.

Eluana Englaro was an Italian woman from Lecco, who entered a persistent vegetative state on 18 January 1992, following a car accident, and subsequently became the focus of a court battle between supporters and opponents of euthanasia. Shortly after her accident, medical staff began feeding Englaro with a feeding tube, but her father "fought to have her feeding tube removed, saying it would be a dignified end to his daughter's life. He said that before the crash his daughter visited a friend who was in a coma and told him she didn't want the same thing to happen to her if she were ever in the same state." The authorities refused his request, but the decision was finally reversed in 2009, after she had spent seventeen years in the persistent vegetative state.

Sidaway v. Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital [1985] AC 871 is an important House of Lords case in English tort law, specifically medical negligence, concerning the duty of a surgeon to inform a patient of the risks before undergoing an operation.

Bryan Jennett British neurosurgeon

William Bryan Jennett was a British neurosurgeon, a faculty member at the University of Glasgow Medical School, and the first full-time chair of neurosurgery in Scotland. He was the co-developer of the assessment tool known as the Glasgow Coma Scale and made advancements in the care of patients with brain injuries. in 1972, Jennett and the neurologist Fred Plum coined the term vegetative state.

Active euthanasia is illegal in the United Kingdom.

Betancourt v. Trinitas Hospital is a New Jersey legal case concerning whether a hospital may unilaterally refuse care to a patient on the grounds that it is futile to prolong the person's life because there is little chance that the condition will improve. It has become the focal point of the ongoing debate surrounding denial of care among professional bioethicists.

Disorders of consciousness are medical conditions that inhibit consciousness. Some define disorders of consciousness as any change from complete self-awareness to inhibited or absent self-awareness and arousal. This category generally includes minimally conscious state and persistent vegetative state, but sometimes also includes the less severe locked-in syndrome and more severe but rare chronic coma. Differential diagnosis of these disorders is an active area of biomedical research. Finally, brain death results in an irreversible disruption of consciousness. While other conditions may cause a moderate deterioration or transient interruption of consciousness, they are not included in this category.

Medical law is the branch of law which concerns the prerogatives and responsibilities of medical professionals and the rights of the patient. It should not be confused with medical jurisprudence, which is a branch of medicine, rather than a branch of law.

Maternal somatic support after brain death occurs when a brain dead patient is pregnant and her body is kept alive to deliver a fetus. It occurs very rarely internationally. Even among brain dead patients, in a U.S. study of 252 brain dead patients from 1990–96, only 5 (2.8%) cases involved pregnant women between 15 and 45 years of age.

Charlie Gard case

The Charlie Gard case was a best interests case in 2017 involving Charles Matthew William "Charlie" Gard, an infant boy from London, born with mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS), a rare genetic disorder that causes progressive brain damage and muscle failure. MDDS has no treatment and usually causes death in infancy. The case became controversial because the medical team and parents disagreed about whether experimental treatment was in the best interests of the child. The case has been classified by legal academics as a 'stigmata case', cases that "are part of the meditation of a culture upon itself."

<i>Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board</i>

Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11 is a Scottish delict, medical negligence and English tort law case on doctors and pharmacists that outlines the rule on the disclosure of risks to satisfy the criteria of an informed consent. The Supreme Court departed and overruled the earlier House of Lords case in Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital, in reconsidering the duty of care of a doctor towards a patient on medical treatment. The case changed the Bolam test to a greater test in medical negligence by introducing the general duty to attempt the disclosure of risks.

References

  1. Re B (a minor) [1990] 3 All ER 927
  2. Re C (a minor) (wardship: medical treatment) [1989] 2 All ER 782
  3. Re J (a minor) (wardship: medical treatment) [1990] 3 All ER 930
  4. R v Arthur (1981) 12 BMLR 1
  5. Pithers, Malcolm (22 December 1993). "Hillsborough victim died 'accidentally': Coroner says withdrawal of treatment not to blame". The Independent.
  6. "BBC On This Day – 28 – 1991: Family anger at Hillsborough verdict".
  7. Ian Herbert (26 April 2016). "Hillsborough disaster verdict: Inquest jury delivers 'unlawful killing' ruling over 1989 football deaths". The Independent.
  8. http://cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/hillsborough-charging-decisions/
  9. Laing, J 2012 'A Lethal Power?' New Law Journal, 162, 1444
  10. Laing, J 2004 'Mental Capacity Bill - A threat to the vulnerable' New Law Journal 154, 1165. Laing, J 2005 'The Mental Capacity Bill 2004: Human Rights Concerns' Family Law Journal 35, 137-143. Laing, J 2008 'Food and Fluids: Human Law, Human Rights and Human Interests' in Artificial Nutrition and Hydration C. Tollefsen, ed., Springer Press, pp. 77-100
  11. Annabel Ferriman (27 March 1997). "Flicker of hope from brain damage victim astonishes doctors". The Independent.
  12. Kate Mansey (11 April 2009). "Hillsborough remembered: Moving devotion of a mum and dad whose son has been comatose for 20 years". mirror.