Is the Doctrine of Double Effect legalising Euthanasia by the back door
Is the Doctrine of Double Effect legalising Euthanasia by the back door? 0326110 In order to fully discuss this question, the definitions of both double effect and euthanasia must be established and the medical, moral and legal aspects compared. Lord Edmund Davies surmised how these aspects may lead to radically different interpretations when he stated that "killing both pain and patient may be good morals but it is far from certain that it is good law"1. In light of this it is fundamental that it is established whether or not euthanasia has become a legalised tenet of British justice "by the back door" so to prevent miscarriages of justice in a medico-legal sphere. It is worth including here the plea by Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae: "I renew the appeal that I made in the Encyclical to the whole Church: to scientists and doctors... especially to jurists and lawmakers. It will be through everyone's commitment that the right to life will be concretely applied in this world. Only in this way will we overcome that sort of silent, cruel selection by which the weakest are unjustly eliminated."2 Indeed, the Hippocratic Oath swears that "I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing nor perform the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death"3. This stance
Confidentiality in medical law (LLM). If a doctor believes that his patient presents a danger to others, he should be allowed to warn those who might be at risk. But he is not, and should never be, duty-bound to do so. Consider and discuss analytica
'If a doctor believes that his patient presents a danger to others, he should be allowed to warn those who might be at risk. But he is not, and should never be, duty-bound to do so.' Consider and discuss analytically the preceding statement. Your answer should make reference to case law. Your essay should be approximately 5,000 words in length. CONFIDENTIALITY . Introduction American university student Cho Seung-Hui only last week calmly walked through his Virgina Tech campus shooting randomly at his loathed fellow students and professors pausing only to post his tirade on the World Wide Web. Clearly troubled and depressed as long ago as 2005 his "sullen and aggressive behavior culminated in an unsuccessful effort by the campus police to have him involuntarily committed to a mental institution."1 A local judge then signed an order referring Cho to the local psychiatric hospital for assessment stating that at that time he clearly presented "an imminent danger to self or others"2 However the hospital psychiatrist determined that Cho, although clearly depressed, he was of sound insight and judgment, on this basis the judge did not commit Cho but referred him instead for outpatient appointments. Shortly later it is believed that the concerns of a literature professor combined with the reported harassment claims by two female students may have attracted the attention of the
PVS A STILL LIFE (LLM)
"PVS - A STILL LIFE" Consider and discuss analytically the following statement: 'Technological advances have allowed us to diagnose the permanent vegetative state with such accuracy, and bioethics and law have progressed to such a point that it is now surely time to redefine death in such a way as to include the PVS patient. After all, courts and doctors are already treating such patients as if they were dead.' .Introduction The patient in the permanent vegetative state (PVS) has a fully functioning brainstem, albeit the higher cerebral functions of the brain have been lost. The person in this condition maintains standard sleep cycles with full or partial hypothalamic and brain stem autonomic functions that facilitate coughing, sneezing, scratching, smiling, crying and sensory reactions. All are automatic responses, able to survive when the cognitive and sensory function filled higher brain dies1. The permanency rather than persistence of this state is a purely temporal diagnosis with the former resulting from a person being in a vegetative state for a period of twelve continuous months or more and the latter from a person being in a vegetative state for one month2. However the term permanent rather than persistent is itself loosing favour in light of the however small chance of recovery experienced by some of the patients suffering from this condition, physicians
Maternal foetal conflict (LLM). Should a woman be able to refuse consent to treatment that will benefit her foetus or behave in ways that may harm her foetus? Discuss with reference to case law and commentary.
Should a woman be able to refuse consent to treatment that will benefit her foetus or behave in ways that may harm her foetus? Discuss with reference to case law and commentary. THE DIVIDED SELF .Introduction Until fairly recently the foetus was an entirely unseen entity, hidden within the womb until birth, its under developed primal form only revealed in the event of tragedy. Now in addition to standard ultrasonic imaging techniques, 3D and even 4D images of the unborn are available, thereby humanising and personalising the foetus in a previously unthought-of of manner. It can be argued that our seeing the previously unseen has wrongly elevated the social status of the foetus to unrealistic and more importantly undeserved legal heights to the ultimate detriment of women.1 The ever-increasing availability of dedicated, daring foetal technological and surgical techniques have seduced the courts into sanctioning unwanted medical intervention, and, as a corollary, disengaging the due legal process of autonomy - all in the belief that they are protecting the well being of the foetus. Often presented by medics with a rushed and apparent life or death ultimatum, the courts, lacking any specialist medical expertise, have ordered antenatal medical intervention with the very best of intentions2. Ordinarily the actions are raised to enforce surgical birth or blood transfusion
Severe Personality Disorder and the Law.
"Individuals with serious personality disorders are not well served by the current criminal and civil laws in the United Kingdom relating to psychiatric defences, fitness to plead and compulsory admission to hospital‟. Critically evaluate these remarks taking account of comparative laws and human rights where relevant. Before these remarks are evaluated critically, it is useful to understand what is meant by the use of the following terms such as serious personality disorders, psychiatric defences, fitness to plead and compulsory admission to hospital. The essay begins by examining the concept of personality disorder and attempts to set the parameters within which meaningful discussion can be held regarding serious personality disordered individuals and their interaction with the legal system in the United Kingdom. Defining personality with any degree of consensus has always been difficult; it is a word used in a common parlance to cover a variety of traits, attributes and behaviours. It is defined as “the quality or collection of qualities which makes a person a distinctive individual”[1]. A disorder of personality is defined as “a deeply ingrained and maladaptive pattern of behaviour of a specified kind that causes difficulties in forming relationships or in functioning within society”[2]. Within the realm of medicine and psychiatry in particular, two
Consider the accuracy of this statement regarding Chester v Afshar.
Medical Law The decision in Chester v Afshar 2004 UKHL 41 can be interpreted to mean both that a claimant can ignore the traditional rules of causation in a clinical negligence case and that the Bolam test (Bolam v Friern HMC 1957 2 All ER 582) is no longer relevant in determining what a patient should be told regarding the risks of medical treatment. Consider the accuracy of this statement. Chester v Afshar (1) has influenced two main issues in medical law and those are; the departure from the traditional rules of causation and the extent of disclosure of information prior to obtaining a patient's consent for treatment. I will consider both of these points in turn. First I need to consider the traditional rules of causation before moving on to an analysis of Chester v Afshar in this area. I will discuss causation in relation to disclosure of information and risks because this is what Chester v Afshar concerns. The only duty in medical negligence is the duty to care for the patient and this is divided into distinct parts, one of which is the duty to provide information. If a claimant contends that he was not warned about a risk in a procedure he will need to prove that the risk should have been disclosed, therefore confirming the defendant has breached her duty to provide information. He would then need to confirm that, had that risk been disclosed, he would not have
In our view, therefore, medical law is a subset of human rights law. (Kennedy & Grubb Medical Law (3rd ed.) Discuss.
"In our view, therefore, medical law is a subset of human rights law." (Kennedy & Grubb Medical Law (3rd ed.) Butterworths 2000 p.3) The rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) became directly enforceable in the courts in the United Kingdom through the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA).1 Section 1 of the HRA fully incorporates the rights set out under the ECHR. Section 2 requires English courts to consider convention rights when making a decision regarding an individual's human rights.2 The role of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is a positive duty defined under Article 1, to 'secure to everyone within the jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention'.3 There are many examples of the complex relationship between English medical law and the ECHR but the focus will be on a select few in this assignment. In the relationship between domestic medical law and European human rights, there are particular areas where English law stands alone with no influence from human rights. Abortion is one of the areas. The Abortion Act 1967 states abortion is lawful if performed by a registered doctor, in circumstances where two doctors agree and is performed in good faith.4 Abortion is permitted until the 24th week of pregnancy on grounds where the pregnancy may lead to physical or mental injury to the pregnant women or other
In order to make a successful claim in the tort of negligence, the patient must establish that the defendant owed them a duty of care.
The case scenario focuses on two people who were treated by Mr Blewitt, the first person Frank involved in the emergency department and the second person being Harvinder. The problem here is concerned with medical malpractice, competent and incompetent adults, consent and confidentiality. In order to make a successful claim in the tort of negligence, the patient must establish that the defendant owed them a duty of care. To prove this, three elements laid down in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman1 must be satisfied. . Duty of care - reasonable forseeability, Proximity, just and reasonable 2. Breach of this duty 3. The breach was the cause of harm Once Frank was omitted to casualty, the hospital came under a duty to provide care and treatment for Frank. In Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington HMC2 the defendants' were not liable for their breach because, the breach was not the cause of injury.3 The duty of care also applies to Harvinder, by the NHS hospital, and their employee, Mr Blewitt. The proximity is the patient-doctor relationship. It was just and reasonable to treat the patients. The standard of care for all medical malpractices for health care professionals and providers' was established in Bolam v Freirn HMC4. The case saw the birth of the Bolam test, where 'A doctor is not guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a
The Ethics of Euthanasia. Cases from around the World and India.
EUTHANASIA- The “Right” to Die ABSTRACT Euthanasia is one of those Taboo topics that individuals try to distance themselves from due to the fact that it’s a sensitive issue. Most individuals try to take a politically correct stand without evaluating the impact it has on the aggrieved party’s life. Euthanasia in itself may seem a simple issue at the first instance, but by probing deep into the issue we are made to ponder a lot about not only its ethical aspects but also the stakes involved in exercising Euthanasia as a fundamental right of an individual. The dilemma in this issue is a lot more complicated if we were to compare it to other conventional ethical dilemmas because both the stands seem morally right, but there’s a legal perspective which opposes one school of thought and supports the other. Is an individual allowed to determine his death if survival is more of a formality? If so what is the basis of qualifying a case to be a suitable contender for euthanasia? Is the judiciary ignoring this since Euthanasia is an issue faced by a minority? SOME FAMOUS VOICES ON EUTHNASIA: . Mr. Ravi B Naik, former High Court Judge and Senior Advocate: (deccanherald.com) “When it is not possible for man to give life, who is he to take it away? We should leave death in the hands of God who gave life. There is no law that allows killing by force till a man dies
The law of England and Wales on assisted suicide is in urgent need of reform. Critically evaluate this statement, including consideration of relevant case law.
Transfer-Encoding: chunked “The law of England and Wales on assisted suicide is in urgent need of reform.” Critically evaluate this statement, including consideration of relevant case law. Thomas More wrote of the ideal society ‘if any have torturing, lingering pain, without hope of recovery or ease…they should no longer cherish a rooted disease, but choose to die since they cannot live but in great misery; being persuaded, if they thus deliver themselves from torture, or allow others to do it.’[1] Such an ideal is far from a reality five hundred years after its inception; some headway was made with the legalisation of suicide in the Suicide Act 1961, however assisted suicide still remains illegal under the same statute, which made it a criminal offence to "aid, abet, counsel or procure the suicide of another" under s2(1).[2] This essay will examine how the stance on assisted suicide has developed over the past fifty years, focusing on reforms made through jurisprudence, reform made in Parliament, the wider debate underpinning the issue and finally how it has been dealt with in other jurisdictions. Throughout assisted suicide is defined as the act of deliberately assisting another person in killing themselves but they perform the act that causes death. It is differentiated from euthanasia (which will also be discussed) as the latter involves the assistant