Euthanasia in England - A law lacking compassion?

European Journal of Health Law

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 89-93

  Grubb, Andrew ^a  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDITORIAL; EUTHANASIA; HUMAN RIGHTS; LEGAL ASPECT; RESPONSIBILITY; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 0034888284     PISSN: 09290273     EISSN: 15718093     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/15718090120523420     Document Type: Editorial

References (21)

1. For a discussion of the 'changing climate for reform' see Otlowski, M.F.A., Voluntary Euthanasia and the Common Law, 1997, Clarendon Press, ch 5.
2. See generally, Griffiths, J., Bood, A., and Weyers, H.; Euthanasia & Law in the Netherlands, 1998, Amsterdam University Press.
3. In England see, for example, Ward, P. and Tate, P., 'Attitudes Among NHS Doctors to Requests for Euthanasia' 308 Brit Med J (1994) 1332. 38 (32%) of 119 NHS doctors responding to a questionnaire indicated they had taken active steps to end a patient's life. See further. Otlowski, op cit, 134-138.
4. But only where death is caused by an act. Where death is caused by an omission, liability will only arise if there was a duty to act. In the case of a doctor, the duty will be determined by what is in the patient's 'best interests': Re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation) [1990] 2 AC 1 (HL). Hence, withholding or withdrawing treatment may be lawful even though this brings about the death of the patient. Importantly, the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) from a patient in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) will not be murder even though this is done knowing that death will result as the continuation of ANH will not be in his 'best interests':
5. see, Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] 1 All ER 821 (HL). Here, the intentional bringing about of the death of the patient is lawful. In Bland, the incongruity of the law in allowing this by omission was remarked up on by Lord Mustill who described the law as "morally and intellectually misshapen" (at 885).
6. See, HM Advocate v Rutherford 1947 JC 1 and Bland, op cit, per Lord Mustill at 890.
7. R v Cox (1992) 12 BMLR 38 and Bland, op cit, per Lord Goff at 867 and per Lord Mustill at 890.
8. R v Cox (1992) 12 BMLR 38, R v Adams [1957] Crim LR 365.
9. See, Dell, S., Murder into Manslaughter, 1984, 35-6.
10. See, Re J (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment) [1990] 3 All ER 930 per Lord Donaldson MR at 938 and Bland, op cit, per Lord Goff at 868.
11. See Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation), supra, per Brooke LJ at 1029-30
12. Washington v Glucksberg 521 US 702 (1997) (US Sup Ct).
13. Rodriguez v British Columbia (A-G) (1993) 82 BCLR (2d) 273 (Can Sup Ct).
14. Kennedy and Grubb, Medical Law, 3rd edn, 2000, 2112-2117.
15. House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics, HL paper 21 (1993-94).
16. Government Response to House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics, 1994, Cm 2553 at 1.
17. Kennedy, I., 'The Quality of Mercy: Patients, Doctors and Dying', 1994 Upjohn Lecture.
18. Rodriguez v British Columbia (A-G) (1993) 82 BCLR (2d) 273 (Can Sup Ct).
19. Washington v Glucksberg 521 US 702 (1997) (US Sup Ct)
20. and Vacco v Quill 117 S Ct 2293 (1997) (US Sup Ct).
21. See, Blake, M., 'Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Criminal Offence or a Patient's Right?' (1997) 5 Med L Rev 294.