Following Mr James’s death, his widow appealed to the Supreme Court, which held that the Court of Appeal was correct to grant the declaration, but that the trial judge’s use of a subjective test for best interests had been correct.

Anthony Bland had been in a PVS. A declaration was sought that it would be lawful to withdraw his life support (in this case, nutrition and hydration through a nasogastric tube). A declaration was granted and upheld in the House of Lords.

Withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in a person in a PVS can be lawful in certain circumstances.

The trust sought a declaration that it was not mandatory to seek court approval for withdrawal of CANH from a patient with PDOC when all parties agreed that continuation was not in the patient’s best interests.

The Supreme Court held that, where the Mental Capacity Act 2005 had been followed and there was no dispute between parties that withdrawal of CANH was in the person’s best interests, there was no requirement for a declaration of best interests.

This case concerned the administration of potassium chloride by a doctor to his patient, who was in considerable pain due to her rheumatoid arthritis.

It is an offence to use drugs with the primary purpose of hastening death.

Tony Nicklinson, who had locked-in syndrome, wanted his doctors to assist him to die. His co-applicant, Martin, also in locked-in syndrome, sought confirmation that the DPP had a duty to clarify his policy for prosecutors in respect of cases of encouraging or assisting suicide.

The court held that section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 is not incompatible with Article 8 of the ECHR. The DPP was not under a duty to clarify his policy.

Mrs Pretty suffered from motor neurone disease. Although competent, she was unable to commit suicide because of her disabilities. She challenged the DPP’s refusal to assure her that her husband would not be prosecuted if he assisted her to die, on the basis of infringement of her human rights.

The case failed in the House of Lords and in the ECtHR, although the latter acknowledged that in the circumstances her Article 8 ECHR rights were engaged.

Mrs Purdy suffered from multiple sclerosis. She felt that if her life became intolerable to her, she would like to commit suicide, although she might need assistance in doing so. She asked the DPP to clarify the criteria under which a person who provided assistance might be prosecuted.

The DPP has published guidance as to how his discretion to prosecute would be exercised.