Baker J's judgment in M's case is a tour de force extending to 261 paragraphs including a masterful analysis of the law (paras 57-103). Essentially, M's family wished medical staff to discontinue offering M life sustaining treatment including artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH). Baker J concluded that the factor carrying substantial weight in this case was the preservation of life (para 7)
This is the first judgment dealing with a patient in a minimally conscious state and Baker J sets out some principles, agreed with the President of the Family Division, to guide future cases - (para. 256).
It is remarkable that the case was argued, on behalf of W's family, by lawyer acting without payment (pro bono). At para. 260 Baker J said:
As regards permitting the media to attend the hearing, Baker J said (para 261):
See the announcement by Harcourt Chambers when Jonathan Baker QC was appointed to the High Court and assigned to the Family Division.
Addendum 30th September: I am delighted to draw attention to three posts on the UK Human Rights Blog - "Court refuses family's right to die" - "No right to die without a living will" and "What is a life worth living? Further analysis of "M" - Daniel Sokol. These look in some detail at the possible consequences of the judgment.