The book strives for as complete and dispassionate a description of the situation as possible and covers in detail: the substantive law applicable to euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, withholding and withdrawing treatment, use of pain relief in potentially lethal doses, terminal sedation, and termination of life without a request (in particular in the case of newborn babies); the process of legal development that has led to the current state of the law; the system of legal control and its operation in practice; and, the results of empirical research concerning actual medical practice.
Typically anorexia nervosa is diagnosed as a condition of teenage girls where the rates of mortality and morbidity are very high and recovery rates very low. This chapter discusses the condition as experienced in Australia by older women who have either lived with anorexia during adolescence and as young women or who have been diagnosed later in life. The discussion traverses issues of consent to treatment or its refusal, capacity to provide consent, and the application of human right protections arising from various human rights instruments.
The National Ethics Council has intensively discussed the issues involved in dealing responsibly with dying. It has perused a large volume of material, obtained expert opinions, consulted with doctors and other medical specialists, and held meetings in Augsburg and Münster at which it exposed itself to public debate. The outcome is enshrined in the Opinion now presented. Self-determination and care at the end of life continues the examination of the themes addressed in the Opinion The advance directive published in June 2005. The present analysis, in conjunction with the clarification of terminology here proposed, may facilitate interpretation of the recommendations set out in that Opinion.
Advance decisions and proxy decision-making in medical treatment and research 13 November 2007 June 2007 This guidance covers the law and ethical issues involved in competent individuals making advance decisions about their later medical treatment and proxy decisions about medical treatment made by other people on behalf of adults who lack mental capacity. When they are mentally competent, patients decide for themselves whether or not to accept the medical treatments recommended by health professionals. This guidance is about what happens when that mental ability to make a valid decision is lost.
This site explains how the law now allows people to make decisions to refuse treatments including those that sustain life. Many people want to achieve a natural and dignified death, this is one way to help achieve it. This is a free and non-profit NHS website. We suggest people enter the site using the relevent menu section (above). Many people benefit from looking at both sections.
Seriously ill children under 16 may be forced to take life-saving medical treatment against their wishes - but only after their maturity and viewpoint have been carefully considered, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled.
Doctors were forced to allow a young woman to die as she had made a "living will" requesting no medical help if she attempted suicide. They would have risked breaking the law by treating Kerrie Wooltorton, 26, of Norwich, an inquest heard. Miss Wooltorton wrote her living will in September 2007, asking for no intervention if she tried to take her own life.
More than 700,000 people in the UK currently suffer from dementia, and nearly 500,000 friends and family members act as carers for people with dementia. Our rapidly ageing population means that these numbers are likely to double in the next forty years. While we are getting to understand better the causes of the disease, and diagnostic and treatment options are improving, we are still a long way from prevention or cure. Meanwhile, these people and their families, healthcare staff and care workers face difficult ethical dilemmas on a day-to-day basis. An exploratory workshop was held in March 2007, and the Nuffield Council set up a Working Party in December 2007 to examine the ethical issues raised by dementia. Following a public consultation and meetings with stakeholders including people with dementia, carers, health professionals and other members of the public, a report with recommendations for policy makers was published on 1st October 2009.
Doctors will be allowed forcibly to sedate the 55-year-old woman in her home and take her to hospital for surgery. She could be forced to remain on a ward afterwards. The case has sparked an intense ethical and legal debate. Experts questioned whether lawyers and doctors should be able to override the wishes of patients and whether force was ever justified in providing medical care.
A cancer patient who has a phobia of hospitals should be forced to undergo a life-saving operation if necessary, a High Court judge has ruled. Sir Nicholas Wall, sitting at the Court of Protection, ruled doctors could forcibly sedate the 55-year-old woman - referred to as PS. PS lacked the capacity to make decisions about her health, he said. Doctors at her NHS Foundation trust had argued PS would die if her ovaries and fallopian tubes were not removed. Evidence presented to Sir Nicholas, head of the High Court Family Division, said PS was diagnosed with uterine cancer last year.
The 30-year-old, known only as SB, could die without emergency treatment for aplastic anemia, a condition in which her bone marrow does not reproduce enough new blood cells. The Court of Protection has now ruled that doctors can restrain SB and force her to undergo the arduous but potentially life-saving treatment, which is administered through a vein in the heart and lasts for five days. SB has been detained under the Mental Health Act. Family Division judge Mrs Justice Hogg ruled that the patient did not have the capacity to make up her own mind over whether to undergo the treatment.
A high court judge in England has ordered that doctors can force a woman without the capacity to decide for herself to have lifesaving treatment for aplastic anaemia. Mrs Justice Hogg made the ruling in the Court of Protection after an unnamed NHS trust applied to the court with the backing of the Official Solicitor, who looks after the interests of those lacking capacity. The judge said the 30 year old woman, named only as SB, who is detained under the Mental Health Act, has a serious psychiatric disorder and lacks the capacity to decide for herself whether or not to have the potentially lifesaving treatment.
This End of life guidance covers three main issues: contemporaneous and advance refusal of treatment; withholding and withdrawing life-prolonging medical treatment; assisted dying - euthanasia and assisted suicide.
A terminally-ill 13-year-old girl has persuaded a hospital to abandon legal action that could have forced her to have a potentially life-saving heart transplant against her will. Hannah Jones, who suffers from a rare form of leukaemia, told doctors that she believed the treatment was too risky and that she would prefer to enjoy her remaining days in the company of family and friends. But in complex right-to-die case, her local hospital began High Court proceedings to temporarily remove her from her parents' custody to allow the transplant to go ahead.
Recent research has shown the advantages for children’s welfare of open fetal surgery over postnatal treatment for myelomeningocele. However, a balance must be struck between complications of premature birth risked by prenatal surgery & the long-term advantages for affected children’s health, including mobility & neurological capacity. Risks for women are repeated surgery for intervention & delivery. The research raises legal & ethical questions about how fetal interests should influence women’s choices, & whether women may decline interventions in their pregnancies that offer their children lifelong advantages. Beyond fetal interests & women’s preferences are state interests in fetal life, which have been expressed in judicially authorized cesareans. Underlying issues are the nature of fetal interests, contrasting entitlements to care from their mothers of fetuses & born children, healthcare providers’ responsibilities toward fetuses, & duties to pregnant women.
With the capacity of doctors to intervene in pregnancy increasing, the likelihood for conflicts between doctors and hospitals and pregnant women is also increasing. Yet our jurisprudence has failed to clarify the bounds of pregnant women’s autonomy. Indeed, this jurisprudence is marked by confusion, leaving courts in the dark as to how to resolve these conflicts. Therefore, it is useful to carefully enunciate the rights and interests at issue in forced medical care of pregnant women. This includes 1) the distinction between the right to refuse medical care of oneself and the lack of a right to refuse consent to necessary medical care of others, 2) the right not to be forced to rescue others, and 3) the nature of the exceptions to these rights. Careful delineation of these concepts reveals that forced medical care of pregnant women lacks justification when these principles are consistently applied.
A central tenet to much ethical argument within medical law is patient autonomy. Although we have seen a welcome move away from a system governed by largely unchecked paternalism, there is not universal agreement on the direction in which medical law should advance. Competing concerns for greater welfare and individual freedom, complicated by an overarching commitment to value-pluralism, make this a tricky area of policy-development. Furthermore, there are distinct understandings of, and justifications for, different conceptions of autonomy. In this paper, we argue that in response to these issues, there has been a failure by the courts properly to distinguish political concepts of liberty and moral concepts of autonomy.
'Living wills' that stipulate exactly how a person wants to die should be drawn up with absolute clarity, a judge has ruled after concluding a 67-year-old man with motor neurone disease had made a "valid decision" to refuse treatment.
A woman with "severe" anorexia who wanted to be allowed to die is to be force fed in her "best interests" by order of a High Court judge. Mr Justice Peter Jackson declared that the 32-year-old from Wales, who cannot be identified, did not have the capacity to make decisions for herself. He made public his judgment on Friday after making the ruling last month.
DOCTORS made an urgent plea to the Supreme Court yesterday to help save the life of a Jehovah's Witness girl dying of leukaemia. Justice Richard White ordered the girl, 4, receive treatment, including a blood transfusion to which her parents had objected on religious grounds. Paediatric oncologist Dr Petra Ritchie, right, said without treatment the girl "will die . . . I would say in weeks". Dr Ritchie said that the girl, who was diagnosed with cancer of the blood and bone marrow on Monday, had a 90 per cent chance of survival if she received treatment immediately. Doctors had this week advised she needed a potentially life-saving blood transfusion but her parents objected on religious grounds. The parents' opposition prompted the hospital to petition the court saying that, without treatment, the girl would die in a matter of weeks.
A lawyer who advised doctors that they must let a 22-year-old Jehovah's Witness die even though he wanted to live has spoken of the agonising scenes before the young man's death.
A High Court judge has ruled in favour of an NHS trust that force feeding would not be in the "best interests" of an anorexic woman. Mrs Justice King, at the Court of Protection in London, heard that the 29-year-old woman, who weighs about 3st 2lb (20kg), does not wish to die. She ruled "all reasonable steps" should be taken to gain the woman's co-operation, without "physical force".
When your time comes to die, you probably hope that you will be surrounded by loving family members and friends who will support you and help you leave this earth at peace with one another. Sadly, for 28 year-old SungEun Grace Lee, who is dying in a Long Island hospital, Rather than suffer a slow, miserable death, Grace has requested that doctors take away the life support. After determining that she was mentally competent, doctors at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, N.Y., prepared to shut off her life support. But her parents did not agree.
A cancer-stricken woman fighting a right-to-die battle against her parents won the backing of an appellate court Friday, which ruled that the 28-year-old bank manager from New York City who is paralyzed as a result of a brain tumor may decide her own fate. The emotional case has been playing out in Grace SungEun Lee’s room at North Shore University Hospital on Long Island, and on a Facebook page, Save Grace SungEun Lee, created by those who sided with family members desperate to keep Lee on life support. As word of the appellate court’s decision spread Friday, the page was swarmed with comments from people arguing for and against it, underscoring the passionate debate that surrounds the issue of individuals’ rights to choose death over terminal illness.