ArticleCureus2026
Withdrawal of Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration for a Patient in a Persistent Vegetative State: A Report of a Case in the UK With Cross-Jurisdictional and Islamic Law Perspectives.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) is a legally and ethically complex intervention governed by distinct frameworks across the world. In the UK, the British Medical Association (BMA) and Royal College of Physicians (RCP) guideline on CANH, formulated in 2018 after a Supreme Court ruling, provides a framework for decisions. In contrast, Islamic law treats nutritional support as basic care, and its withdrawal is prohibited unless it causes direct harm or there is the presence of an advance directive. Cross-jurisdictional cases where a patient moves between these legal frameworks are rarely described in published literature. We report the case of a 61-year-old woman with no co-morbidities who was in Qatar in November 2024 when she had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, resulting in a hypoxic brain injury and later a persistent vegetative state. Her family requested withdrawal of care, citing her wishes to avoid living with a disability. The hospital consulted its ethical and legal departments and concluded that they could not withdraw nutrition as there was no prior explicit directive from the patient. She was repatriated to her local hospital in the UK after eight weeks. She remained in a vegetative state, and her brain imaging was unchanged. Her care team followed the BMA/RCP CANH 2024 guidelines to assist with the process of withdrawing nutrition and hydration and obtained further specialist and legal team opinions. Letters of support from family and friends were also collected. Supportive treatment was withdrawn nine days after UK repatriation, and she died three weeks later with palliative team input. This case illustrates the practical challenges of applying CANH withdrawal guidelines across jurisdictions with different legal and ethical frameworks. It demonstrates the importance of a robust, workable framework like the BMA/RCP guideline on withdrawal of CANH. It highlights the value of advance directives, close family involvement, and legal framework in clinical decisions. Clinicians caring for Muslim patients should be aware of the Islamic bioethical perspective on CANH, which may shape family expectations and discussions in similar situations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.