The 34-year-old man, known as ‘MSP’, died last week following a ruling from a judge who stated that he had the right to refuse treatment.
Before the man underwent surgery which would have left him with a stoma, the man made clear he did not want to live should he need it permanently.
His parents told the judge at the Court of Protection that they wanted to respect the wishes of their son.
However, religious group Christian Concern - a group that offers help to those facing challenges in their workplace - believe this case should be reviewed due to other factors.
A spokesman for Christian Concern said: “The patient had previously said he did not want to live with a permanent stoma, a surgical hole in the stomach to which a colostomy bag is attached to collect digestive waste.
“However, on May 27, when faced with the prospect of losing his life, the patient changed his mind and said he did want the treatment to live ahead of an operation which left him in intensive care.
“Despite this, in a judgment handed down on June 1, Mr Justice Hayden overruled the patient’s wishes, relying on statements which are legally invalid.”
During the court proceedings, Mr Justice Hayden said: “There is no doubt that MSP expressed his consent to the stoma being inserted.
“This consent however seemed entirely contrary to his unambiguous rejection of the stoma, expressed bluntly to three consultants with whom he had discussed it.
“Significantly, on February 4, MSP had written a a carefully-crafted advance directive which he had copied to his parents and to his step-sister.”
The Christian Legal Centre is urging the government to set up an urgent public inquiry to review the cases where doctors were ordered to switch off life support by the Court of Protection or the family division of the High Court.
In a letter to the Secretary of State for Justice Robert Buckland, the chief executive of Christian Concern, Andrea Williams, wrote: “At its core, this judgment is about Mr Justice Hayden rejecting MSP’s express desire to have his life saved by inserting himself into MSP’s mind and will, suggesting that because of how he lived his life and his previous expressions about not wanting to live with a stoma, that regardless of what MSP actually told the hospital, in truth he actually wanted to die.
“This case represents judicial paternalism at its worst, and, on the face of the judgement, appears to amount to court ordered euthanasia.”