Letting Charlotte die

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 30, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 519-520

  Brazier, Margaret ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL VENTILATION; BRAIN INJURY; CHILD CARE; DECISION MAKING; EDITORIAL; GESTATIONAL AGE; GRIEF; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HUMAN; HUMAN RIGHTS; LAW; LAW SUIT; MEDICAL ETHICS; NEWBORN; NEWBORN CARE; NONSURGICAL INVASIVE THERAPY; PARENTERAL NUTRITION; PREMATURITY; QUALITY OF LIFE; RESUSCITATION; SURVIVAL; UNITED KINGDOM;

DEATH AND EUTHANASIA; LEGAL APPROACH;

ETHICS, CLINICAL; EUTHANASIA, PASSIVE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; INFANT, PREMATURE; INFANT, PREMATURE, DISEASES; LEGISLATION, MEDICAL; MASS MEDIA;

EID: 11144317274     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jme.2004.010959     Document Type: Editorial

References (6)

1. Re Wyatt (a child) (medical treatment: parents' consent) [2004] EWHC 2247.
2. The Times, 14 October 2004.
3. The Sunday Times, 17 October 2004.
4. See Re B (A Minor) [1981] 2 WLR 1421 CA.
5. One notable exception to this trend is to be found in the case of Re T (a Minor) (wardship: medical treatment) [1997]1 All ER 906 CA.
6. Glass v United Kingdom [2004] 1 FLR 1019.