Airedale NHS Trust v Bland
In this case, Tony Bland, a supporter of Liverpool suffered severe brain damage after Hillsborough Disaster and left him in a persistent vegetative state with no signs of improvement. He will not likely to survive more than 5 years as well. With the agreement from his parents, the hospital applied for a court order to allow him to ‘die with dignity’.
The main issue here was whether a life support machine can ever be withdrawn from a patient who cannot give consent. In the concern of welfare principle and legal paternalism, it is improper and inappropriate to simply end a person’s life. This is an immoral conduct and must be prohibited by state due to public policy. Brooke LJ in made it clear in ReA that human life is sacred and inviolable, one should never end a person’s life by act or omission.[ ReA [2001] 2 WLR 480] However, according to harm principle, if the court can prove that switching off the life support machine is what Bland would prefer and in his best interest, then it will be lawful. …show more content…
Generally, euthanasia is unlawful in common law.[ F v West Berhshire Healthy Authority [1989] 2 ALL ER 545] It is well established that doctor has a duty to keep patient alive.[ R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2012] EWHC 2381] It is even stated in the Suicide Act 1961 that assisting another to suicide may be punished by law.[ Suicide Act 1961, Section 2(1) - ‘A person who aids, abets,counsels or procures the suicide of another, or an attempt by another to commit suicide, shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen
In this case, Tony Bland, a supporter of Liverpool suffered severe brain damage after Hillsborough Disaster and left him in a persistent vegetative state with no signs of improvement. He will not likely to survive more than 5 years as well. With the agreement from his parents, the hospital applied for a court order to allow him to ‘die with dignity’.
The main issue here was whether a life support machine can ever be withdrawn from a patient who cannot give consent. In the concern of welfare principle and legal paternalism, it is improper and inappropriate to simply end a person’s life. This is an immoral conduct and must be prohibited by state due to public policy. Brooke LJ in made it clear in ReA that human life is sacred and inviolable, one should never end a person’s life by act or omission.[ ReA [2001] 2 WLR 480] However, according to harm principle, if the court can prove that switching off the life support machine is what Bland would prefer and in his best interest, then it will be lawful. …show more content…
Generally, euthanasia is unlawful in common law.[ F v West Berhshire Healthy Authority [1989] 2 ALL ER 545] It is well established that doctor has a duty to keep patient alive.[ R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2012] EWHC 2381] It is even stated in the Suicide Act 1961 that assisting another to suicide may be punished by law.[ Suicide Act 1961, Section 2(1) - ‘A person who aids, abets,counsels or procures the suicide of another, or an attempt by another to commit suicide, shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen