{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02556237218813906, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006134969325153374, 'mean_word_length': 4.792899408284024, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Classic Cases Revisited: Anthony Bland and Withdrawal of Artificial Nutrition and Hydration in the UK

Artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) in the context of end-of-life care generates strong emotions. For some, it may be considered burdensome treatment, while others see ANH as an essential aspect of basic or comfort care. The case of Anthony Bland, which was appealed before the House of Lords in February 1993, has become the test case for the lawfulness of ‘elective’ withdrawal of life support in the form of artificial nutrition and hydration in an adult patient in the UK. While the case has been debated previously,1,2 it is worthwhile revisiting it, given that it informs current practice concerning end-of-life care. It is hard to envisage evidence-based ethics, but cases such as that of Anthony Bland and others inform our practice. The topic of ANH remains controversial to this day and keeping abreast of ethical and legal debate surrounding it, is essential.