A 21-year-old patient, AB, in the care of the applicant health authority had been in a persistent vegetative state for three and a half years after suffering a severe crushed chest injury which caused catastrophic and irreversible damage to the higher functions of his brain. He was being fed artificially and mechanically by a nasogastric tube which had been inserted through his nose and down into his stomach. The unanimous opinion of all the doctors who had examined him was that there was no hope whatsoever of recovery or improvement of any kind in his condition and that there was no reasonable possibility of his ever emerging to a cognitive sapient state from his existing persistent vegetative state in which, although he continued to breathe unaided and his digestion continued to function, he could not see, hear, taste, smell, speak or communicate in any way, was incapable of involuntary movement, could not feel pain and had no cognitative function. In those circumstances the consultant geriatrician at the hospital where AB was being cared for reached the clear conclusion that it would be appropriate to cease further treatment, which would involve withdrawing the artificial feeding through the nasogastric tube and declining antibiotic treatment if and when infection appeared. If such a course were adopted the lack of sustenance would bring to an end the physical functioning of AB’s body within one to two weeks and he would die by starvation. The consultant’s view was supported by other distinguished medical experts. The health authority responsible for AB’s care applied to the court for declarations that it and the responsible physicians could lawfully discontinue all life-sustaining treatment and medical support measures designed to keep AB alive in his existing persistent vegetative state including the termination of ventilation, nutrition and hydration by artificial means and that they could lawfully discontinue and thereafter need not furnish medical treatment to him except for the sole purpose of enabling him to end his life and die peacefully with the greatest dignity and the least pain, suffering and distress. The plaintiffs’ action was supported by the parents and family of AB. The judge granted the declarations sought. The Official Solicitor appealed to the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the judge’s decision. The Official Solicitor appealed to the House of Lords, contending that the withdrawal of life support was both a breach of the doctor’s duty to care for his patient, indefinitely if need be, and a criminal-act.