Vikram Sachdeva in right to life case in which family argues that suffering brings the patient closer to God

News Vikram Sachdeva QC 26th November 2013

In this case the court was asked to decide whether a seriously ill Muslim man should be revived if his condition deteriorates. The man’s family believe that his doctors should do all they can to revive the man, regardless of the futility of their attempts or the pain it causes him, as only God should decide if someone should live or die. Vikram Sachdeva is representing the NHS Trust in this case, who have seek a declaration permitting them not to resuscitate the patient, an order the family disputed.

This is the first case on this issue since the Supreme Court judgment in Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Respondent) v James (Appellant) [2013] 3 WLR 1299. The Aintree case, which involved three members of Thirty Nine Essex Street including Vikram Sachdeva, authoritatively set out the considerations doctors should make when deciding if treating a patient would be futile and giving a Do Not Resuscitate order.

To read an article from the Guardian on this case please click here or a later article from the same newspaper here.

To read an article from The Telegraph please click here.

To read the judgment from this case please click here.

Related Barristers

Vikram Sachdeva QC