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.
Doctors have been given permission to perform potentially life-saving cancer surgery on a woman who has a "delusional belief" she does not have the disease. A judge at the Court of Protection in London ruled that the treatment would be lawful and in the best interests of the 61-year-old, who suffers from chronic schizophrenia.
A lady has cancer of the uterus. She could be cured by a potentially life-saving operation. However, because of other co-morbidities and other factors there is a considerable risk that she could die during the operation or in the post-operative recovery period. She herself lacks the capacity to make an informed decision, but she denies that she has cancer at all and opposes and is resistant to the operation. The medical team at the hospital consider that she would benefit from the operation and would like to perform it. The lady's three adult sons all strongly desire that she should have the operation and feel that the potential benefit outweighs the risk. The Official Solicitor, who acts as her litigation friend, considers, in a phrase, that it is too risky. The question for the court is whether, balancing all the relevant factors, it is in her overall best interests to have the operation or not.
Clinical criteria for PVS will clearly need to be revised in the light of this information. However, this research does not answer deep ethical questions about what should be done. These patients have profound brain injuries and their lives are extremely restricted. How will we evaluate their desires? What should we do if they wish to die? We will still need to do the ethical work to evaluate the implications of what they want, particularly whether they wish to live or die. This is one step towards an answer to the question of how we should care for people with severe brain injuries, but it is not the solution. Not only do we need to know what they want, we also need to know how limited medical resources should be fairly distributed and what constitutes a rational desire to die.
Sally Roberts, 37, is opposed to her son Neon receiving radiotherapy treatment for a brain tumour, and disappeared with him on Sunday. Police launched a nationwide hunt for the pair after they disappeared from Tiverton, Devon. They were found by officers in Sussex. Devon and Cornwall police said: "Emergency protection care has been put in place and Neon's welfare will be considered in the High Court." Mrs Roberts was in the middle of a court battle with the child’s father Ben Roberts, an IT consultant, from Knightsbridge, London, who agrees with doctors that Neon’s chances of survival will be greatly increased with treatment. Mr Justice Hogg, at the High Court, took the unusual step to relax reporting restrictions to allow identification of the child as doctors said that without speedy treatment his chances will be "dramatically reduced".
A judge has postponed a decision on whether a mother should be allowed to prevent her son from receiving radiotherapy for brain cancer. Sally Roberts, 37, has been told seven-year-old Neon could die if he did not receive the treatment. She said she feared the treatment could do long-term harm. At the High Court in London, Mr Justice Bodey said he would rule at a hearing beginning on 18 December - unless agreement could be reached beforehand. During the Saturday morning hearing, he said that although he had intended to rule on the matter, developments had "changed the medical landscape".
The Parliamentary Assembly, referring to its Resolution 1859 (2012) on protecting human rights and dignity by taking into account previously expressed wishes of patients, commends the Committee of Ministers for its foresighted and timely adoption of both the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (Oviedo Convention, ETS No. 164) and Recommendation CM/Rec(2009)11 on principles concerning continuing powers of attorney and advance directives for incapacity.
Both medical and legal commentators contend that there is little legal risk for administering life-sustaining treatment without consent. In this Article, I argue that this perception is inaccurate. First, it is based on an outdated data set, primarily damages cases from the 1990s. More recent plaintiffs have been comparatively more successful in establishing civil liability. Second, the published assessments focus on too-limited data set. Even if the reviewed cases were not outdated, a focus limited to civil liability would still be too narrow. Legal sanctions have also included licensure discipline and other administrative sanctions. In short, the legal risks of providing unwanted life-sustaining treatment are not as rare, meager, and inconsequential as often depicted. In fact, sanctions for administering unwanted treatment are significant and growing.
The mother of a teenage girl who died from anorexia has called for hospitals to change the way they treat young people as they become adults. Vickie Townsend's daughter, Laura Willmott, died from complications caused by the eating disorder. Townsend told an inquest that as the former public schoolgirl approached her 18th birthday, medical staff stopped informing her of her daughter's progress.
The landmark decision of Gillick v West Norfolk Area Health Authority was a victory for advocates of adolescent autonomy. It established a test by which the court could measure children's competence with a view to them authorising medical treatment. However, application of the test by clinicians reveals a number of ambiguities which are compounded by subsequent interpretation of Gillick in the law courts. What must be understood by minors in order for them to be deemed competent? At what point in the consent process should competence be assessed? Does competence confer on minors the authority to refuse as well as to accept medical treatment? These are questions which vex clinicians, minors and their families. A growing number of commentators favour application of parts of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to minors. In this paper, the limitations of this approach are exposed and more radical reform is proposed.