UK Supreme Court supports hospital withholding treatment to dying man

UK Supreme Court supports hospital withholding treatment to dying man

Wednesday, October 30, 2013   Nicholas Tomsho 

http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/10/uk-supreme-court-supports-hospital-withholding-treatment-to-dying-man.php

[JURIST] The UK Supreme Court [official website] ruled [judgment, PDF; press release, PDF] Wednesday that Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [official website] was justified in its decision that withholding certain invasive treatments would be in the best interests of critical care patient David James, despite resistance from the patient's family. James was admitted to Aintree's critical care unit in May 2012 for an infection acquired during his treatment for colon cancer, where he was reliant on ventilator support and suffered multiple severe setbacks. Despite opposition from James' family, the hospital brought proceedings to the Court of Protection [official website] in September 2012. The hospital sought judicial declaration that withholding the specified treatments would be in James' best interest, pursuant to the2005 Mental Capacity Act [text, PDF; Code of Practice] provision that it may in the best interests of a patient to withhold life-sustaining treatment "where treatment is futile, overly burdensome to the patient or where there is no prospect of recovery." The trial judge ruled against the declarations on December 6, and Aintree appealed. James subsequently suffered "further dramatic deterioration," and the Court of Appeal reversed [judgment, PDF] the decision on December 21, 2012. James died of cardiac arrest only 10 days later. Wednesday's ruling by the Supreme Court subsequently determined that the trial judge was correct in opposing the declarations and that the Court of Appeal was also correct in light of the changed circumstances since the initial ruling.

The issue of medical consent in the UK was recently addressed when the Court of Protection ruled [JURIST report] in August that a vasectomy was "in the best interests" of a man with a learning disability who was unable to provide informed consent as to the procedure. End-of-life and right-to-die issues have also been a contentious topic in Europe. The European Court of Human Rights [official website] ruled [JURIST report] in May that assisted suicide laws in Switzerland fail to provide sufficient guidelines on the extent of the right to die. In August 2012 the High Court of England and Wales denied [JURIST report] a paralyzed man's plea challenging laws prohibiting him from committing suicide. In September 2011 a UK High Court judge ruled[JURIST report] that a woman in a "minimally conscious state" due to brain damage did not meet statutory requirements for her family to discontinue her life support.

Canada court upholds law against doctor-assisted suicide

Canada court upholds law against doctor-assisted suicide

Laura Klein Mullen at 1:42 PM ET  October 10, 2013

http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/10/canada-law-against-doctor-assisted-suicide-is-upheld.php

[JURIST] The Court of Appeal for British Columbia [official website] on Thursday upheld[judgment] Canada's law against doctor-assisted suicide. Justice Lynn Smith for the Supreme Court of British Columbia had ruled [JURIST report] last year that the provisions of Canada's Criminal Code unjustly violate the rights to life, liberty and equality. She reasoned that physician-assisted suicide could be executed if adequate safeguards were in place. In a split 2-1 decision, the appeals court overturned the ruling of the lower court:

As the law now stands, there does not appear to be an avenue for relief from a generally sound law that has an extraordinary, even cruel, effect on a small number of individuals. Such individual relief is often referred to as a constitutional exemption. In the past that possibility existed in Canada. ... At the least, a court of law, unencumbered by previous judicial direction, accustomed to assessing issues of consent and influence, and with a perspective outside the (often overstressed) health care regime, should in our view be required to assess individual cases.

The government of Canada had announced its intention to appeal last year's ruling [JURIST report] in July 2012. The case will likely be heard next by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Opinions regarding the right to die [JURIST news archive] have been sharply divided around the world. In May the Louisiana legislature passed a bill [JURIST report] strengthening the state's ban on euthanasia. Earlier that month Georgia Governor Nathan Deal [official website] signed legislation banning assisted suicide[JURIST report] in the state. In 2011 an India high court ruled passive euthanasia was permitted [JURIST report] under certain circumstances, but rejected a petition for a mercy killing. In 2010 a German court ruled that removing a patient from life support is not a criminal offense [JURIST report] if the patient had previously given consent. In 2009 the Italian president refused to sign [JURIST report] a government decree stopping the euthanasia of comatose women because it would violate the separation of power overturning a previous court ruling.