Article By Anugrah Kumar
The mother of a 28-year-old man left severely brain-damaged is pleading for a British court to reverse a ruling that would let her son die of dehydration, calling the decision an act of unbelievable cruelty.
A judge ruled last week that withdrawing the man’s food and water would serve his best interests, according to the United Kingdom-based advocacy group Christian Legal Centre.
The ruling overturned the unanimous position of his family and every clinician treating him, who had agreed in March that his life-sustaining care should continue. She has now launched a petition challenging the court’s decison to withdraw her son from nutrition and hyrdration.
“The Court has authorized withdrawal of his nutrition and hydration,” the Change.org petition reads. “We strongly oppose what is happening and believe this case raises an urgent question for all of us: What protection should a person receive when they can no longer speak for themselves? This is not about attacking judges or undermining the courts.”
“It is about asking Parliament and Government whether the law provides enough safeguards when a person’s life may depend upon a decision about withdrawing life-sustaining treatment,” it adds.
The patient is known only by the initials FHR under a court order that bars his identification, and his mother is identified only by the initials “FN.”
The judge, Justice McKendrick, is the fourth judge to preside over the case, according to The Telegraph, which reported that FHR sustained the injury in January 2020 after trying to take his own life by hanging.
The mother kept her son at her own home for nearly five years before the Court of Protection, which rules on cases involving people who lack the mental capacity to decide for themselves, ordered him moved to a care home in 2025 for a temporary assessment, according to National Right to Life. He was never returned home.
Soon after the move, FN raised concerns about his care and called an ambulance when staff failed to act as his oxygen levels fell. He was found to have aspiration pneumonia, which FN said never occurred while she cared for him at home or in hospital.
FN said staff later told her to leave and threatened to call police, and she has not seen her son there in person since. She has been barred from visiting him for 16 months and can now speak with him only once a day, by a 20-minute video call.
FN told the court her son’s breathing tube went five months without being changed and that he suffered infections she believes could have been prevented.
Her lawyer, Bruno Quintavalle, said FHR needed hospital treatment for serious infection four times during his year at the care home, compared with one such episode in his previous four or five years at home.
In an earlier hearing, the health service had secured orders to move FHR from his family home, restrict his mother’s visits and stop the family from discussing the case publicly. The judge ruled then that FHR should return to the care home after an occupational therapist found him well looked after there, and said the home’s manager could restore FN’s visiting rights.
A transparency order bars publication of any photograph or video of FHR taken since his brain injury. Witnesses in the case testified that they had seen signs of awareness in him and a response tied to emotion.
The Christian Legal Centre, which represents FN, said in a statement that the judge ruled FHR to be in a vegetative state, finding he has “such limited consciousness and communication that his life is devoid of comfort or pleasure,” with little chance of that changing.
Judith Allanson, a doctor specializing in disorders of consciousness, testified that FHR feels no pain and could still regain brain function, saying he smiled when his father spoke to him about football and Arsenal, reports Christian Daily International.
The judge rejected that testimony, saying love can cloud a family’s judgment and no reliable evidence showed FHR experiencing joy or comfort. Rehabilitation consultant Ajoy Nair said adjusting FHR’s medication further would serve no purpose given his brain injury, and recommended withdrawing his nutrition and hydration.
FN has resisted moves to classify her son as brain dead. Her petition calls on lawmakers and the government to step in, though she said it is probably too late to save her son and that the system responsible should be held accountable.
Jacqui Shurlock, chief executive of the Challenging Behaviour Foundation, a charity for young people who have severe learning disabilities, told the Daily Mail that such contact restrictions appear increasingly common, adding that parents who raise concerns are often blamed.
Hanna Whitehead, a Court of Protection lawyer, was quoted as saying that the restrictions have grown more frequent and that some care homes use them to avoid relatives who complain.
FN said in a statement that she never wanted to prolong her son’s life artificially but considers the manner of his death unacceptable, adding, “I believe that ending his life was always their agenda.”
Be the first to comment