Ethics briefing
Nicklinson Supreme Court judgement In June 2014 the Supreme Court ruled on the joint appeals of the late Tony Nicklinson, Paul Lamb and a person identified only as Martin, on the status of UK law on assisted dying.1 As previously reported here,2 ,3 Tony Nicklinson had a catastrophic stroke in 2005,...
| Authors: | ; ; ; ; ; |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
BMJ Publ.
2014
|
| In: |
Journal of medical ethics
Year: 2014, Volume: 40, Issue: 9, Pages: 647-648 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | Nicklinson Supreme Court judgement In June 2014 the Supreme Court ruled on the joint appeals of the late Tony Nicklinson, Paul Lamb and a person identified only as Martin, on the status of UK law on assisted dying.1 As previously reported here,2 ,3 Tony Nicklinson had a catastrophic stroke in 2005, which left him with locked-in syndrome. Unable to end his life himself, he had for many years sought a declaration that it would be lawful for someone to assist him to do so. He died in 2012 from pneumonia, a week after an unsuccessful appeal to the High Court. His widow pursued his appeal to the Court of Appeal with Paul Lamb, who had been severely paralysed in a car accident in 1990. Their contention that UK law was incompatible with the right to a private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was rejected by the Court of Appeal in July 2013 and the appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court, by a majority of seven to two, also dismissed the appeal. Although the majority ruled that the courts do have constitutional authority to make a declaration that UK law is incompatible with the ECHR, only two justices said they would exercise that authority in this case. Assisted dying was deemed to be a matter for Parliament, as the democratically elected legislature, owing to the complex issues of social policy and moral value-judgement involved. While unwilling to make a declaration of incompatibility, many of the judgements indicated broad support for possible reform. In the leading judgement, Lord Neuberger noted that the ‘grave and significant’ interference with Article 8 rights could not necessarily be justified by the complete prohibition on assisted dying. He further noted that the arguments in favour of the current law were far … |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1473-4257 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal of medical ethics
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2014-102395 |