Article Text
Abstract
Several cases which have been considered by the courts in recent years have highlighted the legal dilemmas facing doctors whose decisions result in the ending of a patient's life. This paper considers the case of Dr Cox, who was convicted of attempting to murder one of his patients, and explores the roles of motive, diminished responsibility and consent in cases of "mercy killing". The Cox decision is compared to that of Tony Bland and Janet Johnstone, in which the patients were in a persistent vegetative state. In all three cases, the doctors believed that their patients' quality of life was so poor that their continued existence was of no benefit to them, and decided that their lives should not be unduly prolonged, yet the doctor who was prosecuted was the one whose dying patient had requested that her death be hastened. The paper examines the law's seemingly contradictory approaches to such cases.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Linked Articles
Other content recommended for you
- A case for justified non-voluntary active euthanasia: exploring the ethics of the Groningen Protocol
- The persistent vegetative state, treatment withdrawal, and the Hillsborough disaster: Airedale NHS Trust v Bland
- Consent and end of life decisions
- Neonatal euthanasia: moral considerations and criminal liability
- Causal authorship and the equality principle: a defence of the acts/omissions distinction in euthanasia
- The best interests of persistently vegetative patients: to die rather that to live?
- The mediated discourse and voice of euthanasia: the Israeli media as a case study
- Mario Monicelli's Grande Guerra: the right of living and the choice of dying
- What people close to death say about euthanasia and assisted suicide: a qualitative study
- Neurological disorders, affective bioethics, and the nervous system: reconsidering the Schiavo case from a materialist perspective