The General Medical Council argues that its guidelines have been misinterpreted and there was no reason for the courts to intervene. It says it hopes the appeal will provide clarity.

Leslie Burke, 44, who has the degenerative brain condition cerebellar ataxia, fears that under the General Medical Council's current guidelines, doctors could override his wish to go on living until the disease kills him.

His lawyers say he fears reaching the point where, unable to communicate, he could be denied food and water and could take up to three weeks to die of starvation and thirst.

The end-of-life case echoes that of Terri Schiavo, a Florida woman in a vegetative state whose parents and husband fought over whether she should be allowed to die. She died March 31, almost two weeks after her feeding tube was removed by court order.

Her parents argued that she would have wanted to be kept alive, while her husband said she had not wanted to live in a vegetative state.

Ruling in Burke's case in July, High Court Justice James Munby said most of the General Medical Council's guidelines had been put in place to reassure patients and relatives, but some were unlawful, including one which allowed doctors to withdraw treatment from terminally ill patients in some cases.

Lawyers representing Burke say the High Court decision shifted the balance of power away from the doctor to the patient, and from the medical profession to the courts.

The General Medical Council argues that its guidelines have been misinterpreted and there was no reason for the courts to intervene. It says it hopes the appeal will provide clarity.

The Disability Rights Commission says the High Court ruling provided "genuine protection for disabled people with serious long-term conditions."

The case continues.