This paper examines the Court of Protection decision in Briggs v Briggs. It considers whether the approach of the Court, which gave effective decisive weight to a patient’s previously expressed wishes about whether he should be kept alive in a minimally conscious state, is a proper application of the ‘best interests’ test under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. It assesses whether the Briggs approach is effectively applying a ‘substituted judgement’ test and considers the difficulties in ascertaining what a person’s actual wishes are.

中文翻译：

---

Briggsian异端？先前表示的意愿是否应在有关退出临床辅助营养和水化的决策中确定最佳利益？

本文研究了保护法院在Briggs诉Briggs案中的判决。它考虑了法院的方法是否适当地运用了《 2005年心理能力法案》中的“最大利益”标准，该方法有效地决定了患者先前表达的关于是否应将其保持在最低意识状态下的愿望。它评估Briggs方法是否有效地应用了“替代判断”检验，并考虑了确定一个人的实际愿望的困难。