However, his family say they were left shocked and distressed on August 3 after being told the clinicians would take Maharaj off life support the following day.
Clinicians cited there were no surgical options available and keeping him alive would simply mean turning away other patients with a better prognosis.
The family stated they had no idea his condition was so grave and had been told up until then that his condition was “stable”.
They immediately sought a court injunction to get further time for a second opinion.
They were given five days until 5pm, but the family’s counsel, Duncan McGill, urged the court to order a further five-day extension.
McGill submitted there was a “serious question” about whether the hospital can turn off Maharaj’s life support without the family’s consent, and before they can seek that second opinion.
He said the body of Auckland hospital clinicians advocating his life support be axed was not a “reasonable body” of medical opinion and instead, was an “appearance of bias”, the High Court decision states.
He stressed Maharaj would die if life support was turned off and said it was only August 3 the family were made aware, and fully understood, that a surgical repair was not an option.
Kavita Bhardwaj, Maharaj’s sister, submitted that between July 20 and August 3, the family thought he was “stable” and the doctor’s decision that day was a shock and caused much distress.
However, Justice Eaton accepted the evidence of Auckland City Hospital’s Dr Andrew McKee, who said it was hard to communicate the severity of a patient’s condition while also not giving false hope or an overly optimistic outlook.
“It seems it was the shock of learning there were no surgical interventions proposed that led Mr Mahraj’s family to lose confidence in the medical advice of the clinicians,” Justice Eaton said.
“If they had understood from the outset that surgical intervention was merely a possibility... the decision to withdraw life support would unlikely have given rise to that loss of confidence.”
Justice Eaton said he was “regrettably” of the view that Maharaj’s prognosis was “hopeless” and despite being on life support, his condition was deteriorating.
The machine was prolonging his life, there was no option for him to function without life support and the clinicians were “unanimously” of the view it was no longer medically appropriate to remain on it.
Justice Eaton acknowledged the family had reached out to other health professionals but said even if they got one, he saw “no prospect” of that opinion changing their minds.
“It is not reasonable to require the treating clinicians to respond to treatment options that amount to no more than mere possibilities.”
It had been simply “good fortune” that the hospital had been able to manage Maharaj this long, “however that situation could change at any minute”.
Justice Eaton ruled that he wasn’t persuaded the family’s lack of consent to turning off life support meant it was an unlawful action.
He also found that even if there was extra time, and a second opinion, it would inevitably be made by persons who have not examined Maharaj.
“The court has every sympathy for Mr Maharaj and his family and the predicament they now face,” Justice Eaton said.
“No doubt lessons will be learned in terms of ensuring that a family is not given false hope as to the likely outcomes when a loved one is being kept alive by medical intervention.
“I wish the family well,” he added.
Belinda Feek has been a reporter for 19 years, and at the Herald for eight years, joining the Open Justice team in 2022.
