The medical profession in Britain was reluctant during the 1970s and 1980s to adopt formal approaches to decisions to limit treatment. Persisting with nonbeneficial treatment in various clinical situations was seen as largely an American problem, in spite of clear evidence that it also occurred in Britain. As for the legality of this problem, the eminent physician who drew attention to this contrast with America added that in Britain ‘the medical team is under few constraints – familial, medical and, least of all, legal – to act as it sees fit in the best interest of the patient’ (1). Eventually a single case was to change all that. In April 1989, the teenager Anthony Bland suffered anoxic brain damage when crushed in a football stadium. After 4 months in a vegetative state, his parents requested withdrawal of tube feeding and his physician, who was in agreement, sought the advice of the local coroner. His view was that if Bland then died he would have no option as Coroner but to recommend criminal proceedings and he advised seeking further legal advice. It was to be more than 3 years later (and 16 years after Quinlan) before that case reached the highest courts in the land, which then established the conditions required for withdrawal of ANH from vegetative patients to be legally acceptable in the future (p. 207).