Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDouglas, Michael
dc.date.accessioned2017-01-30T12:17:43Z
dc.date.available2017-01-30T12:17:43Z
dc.date.created2015-05-18T01:59:40Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.identifier.citationDouglas, M. 2014. An Absurd Inconsistency in Law: Nicklinson’s Case and Deciding to Die. Journal of Law and Medicine. 21: pp. 627-640.
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/20149
dc.description.abstract

R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2012] EWHC 2381 was a tragic case that considered a perennial question: whether voluntary, active euthanasia is murder. The traditional position was affirmed, that is, it is indeed murder. The law’s treatment of decisions to refuse treatment resulting in death is a stark contrast to the position in respect of voluntary, active euthanasia. In cases of refusing treatment, principles of individual autonomy are paramount. This article presents an overview of the legal distinction between refusing medical treatment and voluntary, active euthanasia. It questions the purported differences between what are described as acts of “active” or “passive” euthanasia. It also highlights the inconsistency of the law’s treatment of different ways that people decide to die.

dc.publisherThomson
dc.relation.urihttp://www.westlaw.com.au/maf/wlau/app/blob?blobguid=I89612c2db87811e3843cd1808a2cb81a&file=LAWREP-021-JLM-JL-0627.pdf
dc.titleAn Absurd Inconsistency in Law: Nicklinson’s Case and Deciding to Die
dc.typeJournal Article
dcterms.source.volume21
dcterms.source.startPage627
dcterms.source.endPage640
dcterms.source.issn1320159X
dcterms.source.titleJournal of Law and Medicine
curtin.accessStatusFulltext not available


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record