Interveners or Interferers: Intervention in Decisions to Withhold and Withdraw Life-Sustaining Medical Treatment

An important feature of our judicial system is the discretion a court has to allow an individual or (more usually) a group who is not a party to proceedings to intervene in a dispute between others. While historically it has been comparatively rare for a non-party to become involved in litigation, over the past fifteen years, courts appear to have become more willing to allow such intervention.1 If leave to intervene is granted, the role of the non-party is potentially quite significant and can affect the nature of the proceedings. For example, it can result in the parties having to argue aspects of their case that were otherwise not in dispute.2 Over the years, intervention by non-parties has been sought in a range of different legal contexts including in environmental,3 constitutional,4 commercial,5 and defamation cases.6 Intervention has also been an issue in health law cases.7 This article focuses on intervention in a particular health law context, and that is for cases that deal with the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining medical treatment from adults who lack capacity. Requests to intervene generally arise in cases that raise implications beyond the current dispute before the court, and decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining medical treatment clearly fall within this category. Although there is a very private decision being made about an individual’s future, there are also wider repercussions. This decision, which is