Deciding about life-support: a perspective on the ethical and legal framework in the United Kingdom and Australia

J Law Med. 2007 May;14(4):583-96.

Abstract

This article is concerned with the legal right of health service providers to decide whether to provide life-prolonging treatment to patients. In particular, an examination of recent decisions by the English Court of Appeal in R (Burke) v General Medical Council (Official Solicitor and Others Intervening) [2005] EWCA Civ 1003 and the European Court of Human Rights in Burke v United Kingdom (unreported, ECHR, No 19807/06, 11 July 2006) is provided. An analysis of Australian case law is undertaken together with a consideration of the limits of a patient's legal right of autonomy in relation to choosing life-prolonging medical treatment; the basis upon which such treatment can be legally withdrawn or withheld from an incompetent patient against the patient's earlier expressed wishes that it should be continued or initiated; the concept in ethics and law of a patient's best interests; and the role of courts in adjudicating disputes about the continuation of treatment in light of the recent decisions.

Publication types

  • Legal Case
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Australia
  • Humans
  • Life Support Care / ethics*
  • Life Support Care / legislation & jurisprudence*
  • United Kingdom