assisted dying Flashcards
euthanasia
actively inducing someones death
mercy killing as a defence to murder
brown
cannot consent to your own harm with the exception of medical treatment
george webb
defence of mercy killing for murder charge as it was held he was so exhausted and stressed from caring from his terminally ill wife he has diminished responsibilty
doctrine of doubble effect
it is murder to administer drugs with the intent to premptively ending the P’s life regardless that they may have died naturally 10 minutes later, but not murder to administer drugs with the intent to ease pain and this results in the hastining of the death of P
distinction is intention
R v Woolin
if D knew his act would hasten death or lead to serious injury it can be considered murder
R v Adams 1957
if D acts with intent to relive pain but it subsequently hastens P’s death, this is not murder
R v Cox
administerin drugs with no pain reliving qualities that resulted in the hastening of P’s death was held to be murder
PAS
confidentiality of deceased assisted suicide
what is PAS
Physician Assisted Suicide
Assisted suicide
lay person assists in someones suicide which is an offence under the SA with a maximum sentance of 14 years
SA 1961
Suicide act 1961
coroners jutsice act 2009
encouraging or assisting
AS s2(4)
proceedings in Assisted suicide cannot be conducted without DPP consent
Pretty v DPP
the question of weather assisted dying is a violation of ECHR art 8 was put assessed as regardless it would be considered in the ECHR art 8(2) exception as being disportioncate to the protection of vulnerable people
B v NHS trust 2002
cannot administer life ending treatment but can withdrawl life preserving treatment
debbie purdy 2009
Not allowing assisted dying does infringe on ECHR art 8 and right and it is not actually covered by the ECHR art 8(2) exemption as the DPP lacked clear policy on how it prosecuted assisted dying cases at the time
what overuled pretty
purdy, which held that preventing assisted dying is a violation of ECHR art 8
DPP policy put in place as a result of purdy
some motivated wholly by compassion in assisted dying is unlikely to be prosecuted
Tony Nicklinson
at the time the margin of appreciation meant that the denial of assisted dying was permissible despite its contradiction to HR law, however, in future if the UK law isnt brought into line with its international obligations it will be considered a violation of ECHR art 8
noel conway
parliament is reluctant to approve assisted dying
B v NHS 2002
competent adults have the right to refuse life saving treatment
MCA 2005 s4(1)
best interest should not be determined based of P’s (a) age or appearance or (b) behaviour or condition
MCA s(5)
withdrawal of life sustaining treatment cannot be motivated by a desire to induce death
MCA s4(6)
in determining P’s best wishes consider (a) their past and present wishes and any written statements (b) their believes and values and (c) anything they wouldve considered
MCA s4(7)
in determing P’s best wishes consider the views of (a) anyone named by P (b) anyone engaged in P’s welfare (c) P’s attorney and (D) a court appointed deputy
what needs to be considered re determining P’s best interests (7 things)
P’s past and present wishes
written statements
P’s belives and values
Anything P wouldve considered
views of anyone named by P
views of anyone engaged in P’s welfare
views of P’s attorney
Views of P’s court appointed deputy
what shouldnt be considered re determining P’s best interests (4 things)
P’s apperance
P’s age
P’s condition
P’s behaviour
PVS
Permanent/ persistant vegetive state
what is PVS
state of no consciousness
Blank 1993
treatment could be withdrawn as it had become futile and thus no longer in P’s best interests, but death couldn’t be induced
NHS trust A v M; NHS trust B v H
deprivation of life is a deliberate act distinct from the omission of withdrawal of treatment as it doesnt invoke ECHR art 3, right ti humane treatment, as PVS patients have no feelings or comprehension
aintree v james
strong presumption its in the persons best interests to stay alive unless treatment is futile or theres no prospect of recovery
when can ANH be withdrawn
all rehabilitation efforts exhausted over at least 6 months,
confirmed irreversible PVS at least 12 months after injury 2 separate D’s diagnosis and positive consideration of P’s family
Re M 2017
if theres no dispute re P’s best interests, life preserving treatment can be withdrawn without court order
Re Y [2018]
if theres no dispute re P’s best interests, ANH can be withdrawn without court order
is a court order needed to withdraw life preserving treatment
only if there is dispute over whats in P’s best interets,
when can life preserving treatment be withdrawn without liability
when treatment becomes futile or the P has no prospect of recovery and theres agreement its in P’s best interests to do so
