It's a pleasure to host this carefully argued guest post by solicitor and social worker Allan Norman on two important Court of Protection rulings on the 'right to die'. Allan takes up issues around the presumption of capacity, personal autonomy, quality v quantity of life, and the controversial question of whether resources should have a bearing on these decisions. If anybody would like to respond to Allan's arguments or arguments elsewhere on these cases, please use the comments below or get in touch if you'd like to write a guest post.Re E (Medical treatment: Anorexia) (Rev 1) [2012] EWHC 1639 (COP) (15 June 2012)
Thou shalt not kill, but need not strive
Officiously to keep alive
- from The Latest Decalogue, by Arthur Hugh Clough
A British Medical Journal editorial last month argued, 'Sanctity of life law has gone too far'. The Emeritus Professor of Medical Ethics, Raanan Gillon was specifically critiquing a judgement of the Court of Protection last year, W v M and Others [2011] EWHC 2443 (COP) (28 September 2011). That case held, notwithstanding the previously expressed wishes of the person concerned, who was in a minimally conscious state, that it was in their best interests to be kept alive, and that it was properly a matter for the court to decide. Gillon's editorial criticises the approach taken to best interests that overrides express wishes, the requirement to involve the court in best interests decision making, and the resource implications. The editorial has itself been criticised, as the UK Human Rights Blog has highlighted, as a call to "dehydrate dementia patients to save money". And that critique of Gillon resonates with another recent media story from another prominent health professor about the Liverpool Care Pathway, 'Elderly patients 'helped to die to free up beds', warns doctor'. With raw nerve criticisms like that, I am staking a lot when I defend Gillon's arguments, as I do here.
