
The Court of Appeal will be asked to rule this week on who can decide whether a patient has treatment to prolong their life.
The right to life/right to die debate has been sparked recently over cases such as Terri Schiavo in the US whose feeding tube was withdrawn after a protracted legal battle in March 2005.
The judges will decide where to draw the line between maintaining patients' autonomy, and supporting doctors' duty to act in what they believe to be their patients' best interests.
A high court ruling in July 2004 found the GMC's guidance to doctors on withholding and withdrawing life-prolonging treatment to be unlawful, and in breach of human rights. The GMC is appealing against the decision.
The European Convention on Human Rights enshrines the right to life. Some believe it is incompatible with the current GMC guidelines which allow doctors to make the final decision on whether to give treatment to a patient or to withhold it.
BackRelated news stories
- 17/05/2006: Right to life case - Leslie Burke lodges appeal at European Court of Human Rights
- 27/02/2006: Girl given life-sustaining treatment after medical experts recommend treatment
- 28/07/2005: Court of appeal rules on right-to-life case
- 01/07/2005: BMA rules on right to life - right to die
- 20/06/2005: Doctors push for right to die law
- 23/03/2005: Right to die - right to life case: Solicitor Muiris Lyons comments on CNN
If you believe that you might have a legal claim relating to this story, please complete the online enquiry form or call 0870 024 0558. Your enquiry will be forwarded to a solicitor who specialises in this area.
If you have any comments in relation to this story, please use the online discussion forum.
This news section contains stories of interest to our clients from publicly available news sources. Where we are representing the clients referred to in the news material we will say so. Where we do not represent individuals or bodies mentioned or quoted, the inclusion of the news story in our news section is not intended nor should it be taken to imply that we act for the individual or body concerned.
