Now read the following article.

The right-to-die judgement

A 43-year-old woman who is paralysed from the neck down and is on a life-support machine, today won her high court battle for the right to die. This case sets a legal precedent that other patients may wish to follow. The key issue is that this woman would die if her ventilator was turned off. Euthanasia, however, is seen as more controversial because it involves active killing.

Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, president of the high court family division, said the ruling would allow the woman to die "peacefully and with dignity".

The woman was granted anonymity and referred to in court as Miss B. Miss B was born in Jamaica and moved to the UK at the age of eight.

No. She learned that she had won her case via a video link to her hospital bed.
It is believed to be the first time that court proceedings at a hospital have been relayed via video link.

Doctors at the hospital say it would be against their ethics to switch off the machine needed to keep the patient alive.

Yes. The court ruled that she had the necessary mental capacity to give consent or to refuse consent to life-sustaining treatment. Miss B said: "This is a balanced and well-thought-out judgement and I am very pleased with the outcome of this case."

Doctors warned her in August 1999 that a malformation of blood vessels in her spinal column could result in severe disability. Miss B wrote a will stating that she did not want treatment if she was left suffering with a terminal condition. However, she improved and left hospital optimistic about her future.

Unfortunately, in 2001, she suffered a weakening on the left side and numbness in her legs. In February she was left paralysed from the neck down. She was transferred to intensive care and is now entirely dependent on a ventilator. At that time she showed the doctors her will. But the doctors said her will was not specific enough to authorise them to end treatment. The hospital asked two psychiatrists to assess her competence to make the decision. Both initially found she did have such a capacity, but then reversed their findings.

When the psychiatrists changed their reports, Miss B was prescribed antidepressants and then agreed she was relieved the ventilator had not been switched off. In May she said she would try rehabilitation. But in August Miss B authorised a doctor to reassess her ability to make decisions and he found that she was competent. The hospital said it respected her decision, but did not turn off the ventilator.

An anti-euthanasia group warned that the case should not be regarded as a "right-to-die" case. He said: "The judge has upheld the right to refuse treatment. The use of pro-euthanasia slogans such as 'right to die' or 'death with dignity' is worrying."

However, the director of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, Deborah Annetts, said: "This is a victory for common sense. This case has confirmed that patient choice must be at the centre of all treatment decisions." Withdrawing food and water was a failure to provide "basic care" while ventilation - the issue at the heart of Miss B's case - was regarded as treatment, Dr Cole said.

No. Robert Francis QC, who represented the hospital trust, said the hospital would like to express regret for any distress "however unintentionally caused" to Miss B in the course of resolving "this very difficult case".  

Dame Elizabeth described the woman's background in court. She said: "She had an unhappy childhood but triumphed over many difficulties to achieve a degree in social science and social work, and a masters degree in public policy and administration.

Now without looking back at the article can you put these events from Miss B's case in the right order?

See how much of the article you have understood.