|
Cases
and illustrations of the principle of freedom being restricted by the law
Including the right to life or the right to die, and other moral issues. |
|
Airedale NHS
Trust v Bland
[1993] HL |
|
(A patient in a
vegetative state for whom there was no hope of recovery was allowed to
die. The House of Lords said this was lawful but the courts should give
guidance. Do we have a right to die? Other cases on this point are
Pretty, and
Re: B) |
|
Annie Lindsell |
|
(Woman denied the
right to chose when she should die) |
|
Attorney
General’s Ref
(No 6 of 1980) CA |
|
(Consensual fighting
in the street not lawful) |
|
Baker v Hopkins
[1959] CA |
|
(Damages awarded to
rescuer who suffered psychiatric harm) |
|
Bolam v Friern
Hospital
[1957] QBD |
|
(Doctor acting
within normal practice not liable for injuring patient) |
|
Central London
Property v High Trees House
[1956] Denning J |
|
(The equitable
principle of promissory estoppel makes a promise binding) |
|
Chadwick v
British Railways
[1967] Waller J |
|
(Damages awarded to
rescuer who suffered psychiatric harm) |
|
Clark v MacLennan
[1983] |
|
(Doctor acting
outside normal practice liable for injuring patient) |
|
F v West
Berkshire Health Authority
[1990] HL |
|
(Compulsory
sterilisation of mental patient) |
|
Fairchild v
Glenhaven
[2002] HL |
|
(Policy
considerations allow justice – precise cause of mesothelioma not known) |
|
Frenchay NHS
Trust v S
[1993] CA |
|
(Allowing patient to
die not to be questioned) |
|
Gillick v West
Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority
[1986] HL |
|
(Rights of parent
overruled, raises the question of "Whose moral preference?")
Mrs Gillick took the DSS to court over a memorandum instructing doctors to
prescribe the contraceptive pill to under age girls, without obtaining
parental consent
Gillick thought this unlawful, she won her case at appeal but lost in the
House of Lords. It is a good illustration of how law and morality turn on
different legal interpretations.
Government's stance: non-prescription of the pill could lead to back
street abortions, infection, and spread of disease.
Issues:
Can a young person (under 16) give consent.
Do they possess sufficient autonomy to decide what to do with their
bodies.
'When does parental control wane? |
|
Human
Fertilisation and Embryology Authority Ex p. Blood, R v
[1997] CA |
|
(Taking deceased
husband’s sperm for insemination out of the UK) |
|
Nettleship v
Weston
[1971] CA |
|
(Learner drive
morally blameless found liable for injury to passenger) |
|
Pretty v The
United Kingdom
(2002) ECHR |
|
(Patient not allowed
assisted suicide) |
|
Brown, R v (1993) HL |
|
(Sado-masochistic
males convicted of causing harm to each other)
Contrast
R v Wilson (Alan) (1996)
R v
Boyea [1992]
R v
Donovan (1934) |
|
R v Cox (1992) Winchester Crown Court, Ognall J |
|
(Mercy killing was
it merciful release or murder) |
|
R v Howe
[1987] HL |
|
(Duress not a
defence to murder) |
|
R v R (rape -
marital exemption)
[1991] HL |
|
(Husband could be
guilty of raping his wife) |
|
R v
Sheppard [1980] HL |
|
(Ignorant parents
not guilty of wilful neglect causing child's death) |
|
R v Stone &
Dobinson
[1977] CA |
|
(Indifference
creates liability for death) |
|
Re A (Children)
(2000) CA |
|
(Moral issue in
conjoined twin case) |
|
Re B (A Minor)
(Wardship: Medical Treatment)
[1981] |
|
(Down's Syndrome
child allowed to die) |
|
Re B (adult:
refusal of medical treatment)
[2002] FD |
|
(Patient's right to
refuse medical treatment causes her death) |
|
Re J (a Minor) [1991]
CA |
|
(No absolute
presumption in favour of life & no requirement to ‘strive officiously to
keep alive’) |
|
Re S (Adult
Patient: Sterilisation)
(2000) CA |
|
(Mental patient not
forced to have hysterectomy) |
|
Re T [1992]
CA |
|
(Blood transfusion
against religious wishes lawful) |
|
Re W (A Minor)
[1992] CA |
|
(16 year old treated
for anorexia nervosa against her wishes) |
|
Roe v Ministry of
Health
[1954] CA |
|
(Medical practice
sets its own standards) |
|
Sidaway v Bethlem
Royal Hospital
[1985] HL |
|
(Doctor can decide
how much information regarding risk is given to patient)
Mrs Sidaway under went an operation to relieve pain in her neck and
shoulders. There was a small risk of severe disablement should the spinal
cord be damaged.
The risk materialized and she was paralysed, but the operation was not
carried out negligently.
As the surgeon who did the operation died between the operation and the
hearing of the case; what was actually said to Mrs Sidaway could never be
ascertained.
Mrs Sidaway evoked the American phrase "informed consent". She argued that
the surgeon should have told her of all the risks involved.
Did the doctor know best and presume that Mrs Sidaway would have undergone
the operation. Is it right that all medical help is regarded as
experimental thereby giving Surgeons an 'excuse', Roe v Minister For
Health.
Should the law sanction the doctors or patients position?
In terms of the consent every patient gives before an operation, perhaps
we consent to an unforeseeable accident, but not to a risk we should know
about? |
|
The case of Derek
Sage |
|
(An example of a man
being denied life saving treatment because his quality of life was
questioned)
A
health authority refused to continue kidney dialysis treatment on the
grounds that Mr sage had not a sufficiently 'high quality of life'.
As there were enough machines to go round, it was not a shortage of
resources issue.
The phrase quality of life was highly suspect, mostly for its lack of
"qualification".
Did this mean that doctors could pick and choose who receives treatment?
Do you reject the elderly, the less well educated or the very young.
If society pays for medical care through taxation does society have a
right to determine who gets treatment. Why spend thousands of pounds on an
organ transplant that rarely work, when you could spend the money on more
effective treatments?
How does a doctor allocate resources? |
|
Youssoupoff v MGM
Pictures
(1934) CA |
|
(Morals change over
time, rape case) |
