Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-747cfc64b6-9ng7f Total loading time: 0.419 Render date: 2021-06-13T09:15:48.959Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

The value of life in English law: revered but not sacred?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Rob Heywood
Affiliation:
UEA Law School
Alexandra Mullock
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Terms such as sanctity and inviolability have failed to provide a legally coherent or ethically sound principle upon which to determine the scope of the intrinsic value of life against extrinsic, quality-of-life considerations in a medical context. In their recent work, Margaret Brazier and Suzanne Ost introduce a new term, reverence for life, which they suggest may be more appropriate when attempting to navigate the murky waters of the meaning of life and the value that should be attached to it. They suggest that reverence should be utilised as an alternative that better reflects the nuances and the realities of the dilemma. This paper explores the existing difficulties before considering how the principle of reverence might provide a principled compromise over when the presumption in favour of preserving life should be rebutted.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , December 2016 , pp. 658 - 682
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
Legal Studies: The Journal of the Society of Legal Scholars published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Legal Scholars This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Copyright
© 2016 The Authors

Footnotes

*

This longer paper was adapted and developed from a short chapter originally published in an edited book: C Stanton et al (eds) Pioneering Healthcare Law: Essays in Honour of Margaret Brazier (London: Routledge, 2016). The work for this paper was supported by the Wellcome Trust [108858/Z/15/Z].

References

1. See inter alia Keown, J The Law and Ethics of Medicine: Essays on the Inviolability of Human Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dworkin, R Life's Dominion: an Argument about Abortion and Euthanasia (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1993)Google Scholar; Harris, J The Value of Life (London: Routledge, 1985)Google ScholarPubMed; Williams, G The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law (London: Faber and Faber, 1957)Google Scholar.

2. See Williams, above n 1.

3. See Keown, above n 1.

4. Brazier, M and Ost, S Bioethics, Medicine and the Criminal Law Volume 3: Medicine and Bioethics in the Theatre of the Criminal Process (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. Ibid, p 89.

6. Ibid.

7. ‘End-of-life law’ encompasses both criminal and medical law principles. See Coggon, J ‘Assisted dying and the context of debate: “medical law” versus “end-of-life law” (2010) 18 Med L Rev 541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. See, in particular, M v N and Others [2015] EWCOP 76; (2015) 18 CCL Rep 603; R (Nicklinson and Another) v Ministry of Justice, R (AM (AP)) v DPP [2014] UKSC 38; [2014] 3 WLR 200; Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v James [2013] UKSC 67; [2014] AC 591; W v M [2011] EWHC 2443 (Fam); [2012] 1 WLR 1653; R (Purdy) v DPP [2009] UKHL 45; [2010] 1 AC 345; Pretty v United Kingdom (2346 / 02) [2002] 2 FLR 45; Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789.

9. Brazier and Ost, above n 4, pp 90–91.

10. Ibid.

11. In terms of the literature, see in particular Williams, above n 1. The sanctity of human life is discussed at length in the House of Lords’ decision in Bland, above n 8. More recently, see the judgment of Lord Neuberger in Nicklinson, above n 8, at [90]–[98].

12. Brazier and Ost, above n 4, pp 83–84.

13. Jackson, E and Keown, J Debating Euthanasia (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2012) p 37.Google Scholar

14. Keown, above n 1, p 4.

15. Williams, above n 1.

16. Keown, above n 1, at 5–22.

17. Ibid, at 13–16, 332–335.

18. Ibid, at 12.

19. Brazier and Ost, above n 4, p 89.

20. Keown, above n 1, p 12.

21. Price, DFairly Bland: an alternative view of a supposed new “death ethic” and the BMA guidelines’ (2001) 21 Legal Stud 618 at 638.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

22. R v Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82.

23. See, amongst others, Mohindra, RKMedical futility: a conceptual model’ (2007) 33 J Med Ethics 71 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Jecker, NS and Pearlman, RAMedical futility: who decides?’ (1992) 152 Arch Intern Med 1140 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; See also Sir Alan Ward's analysis in Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v David James and Others [2013] EWCA Civ 65 at [35].

24. For discussion, see Keown, above n 1, pp 330–332.

25. See Jackson and Keown, above n 13; and also Harris, above n 1.

26. Singer, P Practical Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn, 1993) at 194196.Google Scholar

27. Harris, JEuthanasia and the value of life’ in Keown, J (ed) Euthanasia Examined: Ethical, Clinical and Legal Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997) pp 10, 20.Google Scholar

28. Rachels, J The End of Life: Euthanasia and Morality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986) p 26.Google Scholar

29. For a discussion of the DPP's decision not to prosecute, see http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/articles/death_by_suicide_of_daniel_james/ (accessed 14 February 2016). See also Purdy, above n 8.

30. For discussion, see De Haan, JThe ethics of euthanasia: advocates’ perspectives’ (2002) 16 Bioethics 154 at 171 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Huxtable, R and Moller, M“Setting a principled boundary”? euthanasia as a response to “life fatigue”’ (2007) 21 Bioethics 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31. Huxtable, R Euthanasia, Ethics and the Law: from Conflict to Compromise (London: Routledge Cavendish, 2007) p 15.Google Scholar

32. Schweitzer, A The Teaching of Reverence for Life (London: Peter Owen, 1966).Google Scholar

33. Schweitzer, A Out of My Life and Thought: an Autobiography , tr AB Lemke (New York: Henry Holt, 1990) pp 154155.Google Scholar

34. Schweitzer, above n 32, p 31.

35. Ibid.

36. Ibid.

37. See Barsam, AP Reverence for Life: Albert Schweitzer's Great Contribution to Ethical Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008) pp 3637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38. Schweitzer, A A Place for Revelation: Sermons on Reverence for Life , ed Strege, M and Stiehm, L, tr DL Holland (London: Macmillan, 1988) p 37.Google Scholar

39. Brazier and Ost, above n 4, p 89.

40. Ibid. The authors simply state that it will become ‘apparent’ that they do not intend to use the phrase in the same way as Schweitzer.

41. Brazier and Ost, above n 4, p 90.

42. Ibid.

43. See Barsam, above n 37, p 30. See also Schweitzer, above n 33, p 237.

44. See Barsam, ibid, p 40.

45. Brazier and Ost, above n 4, p 90.

46. Ibid, p 91.

47. For an alternative and interesting discussion, see Huxtable, R Law, Ethics and Compromise at the Limits of Life: to Treat or Not to Treat? (London: Routledge, 2013).Google Scholar

48. Bland, above n 8. For a general critique, see Keown, above n 1.

49. Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1992) WL 896030; (1992) 142 NLJ 1755, per Hoffmann LJ (as he then was).

50. Keown, above n 1, p 340.

51. Bland, above n 8.

52. This approach is actually advocated by Keown, above n 1.

53. W v M; Aintree, above n 8.

54. See discussion above at pp 6–8. In particular, see Doyal, LDignity in dying should include the legalisation of non-voluntary euthanasia’ (2006) 1 Clin Ethics 65 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Singer, above n 26.

55. Indeed, this would seem to be a key reason as to why Brazier and Ost have sought to develop their reverence for life argument.

56. Brazier and Ost, above n 4, at 90–91.

57. Pretty, Purdy and Nicklinson, above n 8.

58. W v M; Aintree; Nicklinson, above n 8.

59. Ibid.

60. See Heywood, RWithdrawal of treatment from minimally conscious patients’ (2012) 7(1) Clin Ethics 1016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mullock, A ‘Deciding the fate of a minimally conscious patient: an unsatisfactory balancing act? (2012) 20(3) Med L Rev 460469 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Mullock, ABest interests and the sanctity of life after W v M ’ (2013) 39(9) J Med Ethics 553554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

61. Section 4(6) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 requires the decision maker to ‘consider, as far as reasonably ascertainable, the person's past and present wishes and feelings … and the beliefs and values that would be likely to influence his decision …’

62. Mental Capacity Act 2005 s 4(7). For an interesting discussion, see Halliday, S, Kitzinger, C and Kitzinger, JLaw in everyday life and death: a socio-legal study of chronic disorders of consciousness’ (2015) 35(1) Legal Stud 5574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

63. The evidence produced painted a very uncertain picture about M's quality of life, including evidence of suffering, distress and some contentment. Some have questioned the assumption that something is better than nothing in this context. See eg Ashwal, S and Cranford, RThe minimally conscious state in children’ (2002) 9 Seminars in Pediatric Neurology 19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

64. Kitzinger, C and Kitzinger, JThe “window of opportunity” for death after severe brain injury: family experiences’ (2013) 35 Sociol Health & Illness 1095.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

65. The treatment in question was not ANH but invasive support for circulatory problems, renal replacement therapy and CPR (in the event of cardiac arrest).

66. Aintree [2012] EWHC 3524 COP.

67. Aintree [2013] EWCA Civ 65.

68. Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Clarke, Lord Carnwath and Lord Hughes.

69. Aintree, above n 8, at [35].

70. Ibid, at [45]. This supports the decision in R (Burke) v General Medical Council [2005] EWCA Civ 1003 CA.

71. Substituted judgment is employed in some US jurisdictions. See In re Quinlan (1976) 355 A.2d 647; Cruzan v Director Missouri Department of Health (1990) 110 S Ct 2841 (USA Supreme Court).

72. M v N, above n 8.

73. Per Hayden J in M v N, above n 8, at [74].

74. Per Hayden J in M v N, above n 8, at [75].

75. For another recent case in which significant emphasis was placed on the subjective position of the patient, see Wye Valley NHS Trust v B [2015] EWCOP 60; [2015] COPLR 843.

76. This is especially pertinent in the light of the UN Convention for the Rights of People with Disability (UNCRPD), Art 12. This provision seeks to promote a ‘supported decision-making' scheme for those who lack capacity, which creates a tension if the patient seems to prefer a course of action that is not in his medical best interests. Also, if the patient is unable to communicate or indicate any preference, it would appear to be effectively impossible to achieve ‘supported decision-making’.

77. Heywood, RMoving on from Bland: the evolution of the law and minimally conscious patients’ (2014) 22(4) Med L Rev 548571.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

78. [2014] EWCOP 16.

79. Ibid, at [29]–[33].

80. Sheffield Teaching Hospital NHS Trust v TH and TR [2014] EWCOP 4.

81. Ibid, at [55].

82. See Nicklinson, Pretty and Purdy, above n 8.

83. Lady Hale and Lord Kerr.

84. See the judgments of Lord Neuberger, Lord Wilson and Lord Mance.

85. See eg Haas v Switzerland (2011) 53 EHRR 33; Koch v Germany (2013) 56 EHRR 6; and Gross v Switzerland (2014) 58 EHRR 7.

86. Nicklinson, above n 8, at [90].

87. Ibid, at [94].

88. See B v NHS Hospital Trust [2002] EWHC 429 (Fam); [2002] 2 All ER 449.

89. Nicklinson, above n 8, at [302]–[304]; and Bland, above n 8.

90. See Nicklinson, above n 8. Lord Kerr agreed with Neuberger regarding the logic of using the sanctity argument to prevent those who need assistance while those able to act independently are not prevented [358].

91. Purdy, above n 8.

92. Nicklinson, above n 8, at [96].

93. Ibid.

94. Ibid, at [108].

95. Ibid, at [209].

96. Ibid, at [311].

97. Ibid.

98. Purdy, above n 8.

99. Ibid, at [68].

100. Ibid, at [66].

101. Ibid, at [68].

102. The Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill, MP Rob Marris’ private member's bill – which, like the recent HL Bill (below) sought to legalise physician-assisted suicide (PAS) for terminally ill, mentally competent people expected to die naturally within 6 months – was defeated at second reading on 11 September 2015.

103. House of Lords Bill (24 (2013), 6 (2014)). The Bill reached Committee Stage before parliamentary time elapsed; however, it is significant that some of the debates reflected an appreciation of the judgment in Nicklinson.

104. See Hansard HL Deb, vol 756, cols 1851–1898, 7 November 2014; and cols 1001–1047, 16 January 2015.

105. B v NHS Trust, above n 88.

106. See eg Mason, JK and Laurie, GT Mason and McCall Smith's Law and Medical Ethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 9th edn, 2013) p 549 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Orentlicher, DThe alleged distinction between euthanasia and the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment: conceptually incoherent and impossible to maintain’ (2012) 1998 U Ill L Rev 837.Google ScholarPubMed

107. Mental Capacity Act 2005, s 4(6)(a)–(c).

108. Bland, above n 8, at 866.

109. See eg Kass, LRDeath with dignity and the sanctity of life’ in Kogan, BS (ed) A Time to be Born and a Time to Die: the Ethics of Choice (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1991) p 117 Google Scholar; Macklin, RDignity is a useless concept: it means no more than respect for persons or their autonomy’ (2003) 327(7429) Br Med J 1419 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schroeder, DDignity: Two riddles and four concepts’ (2008) 17(2), Camb Q Healthcare Ethics 230 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Dworkin, G The Theory and Practice of Autonomy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; O'Neill, O Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McLean, S Assisted Dying: Reflections on the Need for Law Reform (London: Routledge, 2007).Google Scholar

110. See Neal, MRespect for human dignity as “substantive basic norm”’ (2014) 10 Int'l J Law in Context 26 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Neal, MDignity, law and language-games’ (2012) 25 Int'l J for Semiotics L – Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Neal, M“Not gods but animals”: human dignity and vulnerable subjecthood’ (2012) 33 Liverpool L Rev 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

111. Ibid, Neal ‘Human dignity and vulnerable subjecthood’, at 179.

112. Above n 8.

113. Dignity in Dying, see http://www.dignityindying.org.uk/about-us/ (accessed 14 February 2016).

114. See eg Fischer, S et al ‘Reasons why people in Switzerland seek assisted suicide: the view of patients and physicians’ (2009) 139 Swiss Med Weekly 333 Google ScholarPubMed; Ruijs, CDM et al ‘Unbearable suffering and requests for euthanasia prospectively studied in end-of-life cancer patients in primary care’ (2014) 13(1) BMC Palliative Care 62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

115. For two interesting decisions that illustrate the extent to which the criminal law permits autonomous choice in relation to certain activities, but not others, see R v Wilson [1997] QB 47; R v Brown and Others [1994] 1 AC 212.

116. Nicklinson, above n 8, at [314].

117. Ibid.

118. See eg the British Medical Association's Policy on assisted dying, available at http://bma.org.uk/practical-support-at-work/ethics/bma-policy-assisted-dying (accessed 14 February 2016), and Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Committee Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill tteeics/bma-po (2005) at 42.

119. For a discussion, see Huxtable, R and Mullock, AVoices of discontent? Conscience, compromise and assisted dying’ (2015) 23 Med L Rev 242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

120. Fischer et al, above n 114, at 333; Ruijs et al, above n 113.

121. Brazier and Ost, above n 4, p 83.

122. Price, DMy view of the sanctity of life: a rebuttal of John Keown's critique’ (2007) 27 Legal Stud 549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

123. Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11; [2015] AC 1430.

You have Access
Open access
2
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The value of life in English law: revered but not sacred?
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The value of life in English law: revered but not sacred?
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The value of life in English law: revered but not sacred?
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *