Advanced Decision Directives (Living Wills): It’s a Matter of Life and Death
The legal landscape governing end-of-life decisions has long been one of the most ethically challenging areas of law. Two landmark UK cases—Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] and R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2014]—highlight the legal, ethical, and human dilemmas surrounding euthanasia, assisted suicide, and the right to die. These cases have shaped the UK’s approach to balancing the sanctity of life, patient autonomy, and the role of the courts versus Parliament in making decisions on life-ending interventions.
Case 1: Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] – The Right to Die?
Tony Bland, a victim of the 1989 Hillsborough disaster, suffered irreversible brain damage and was left in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). He was incapable of consciousness, movement, or communication and was kept alive solely through artificial nutrition and hydration.
After three and a half years, his doctors, with the consent of his family, sought a court declaration to withdraw life-sustaining treatment, allowing him to die peacefully. The ethical dilemma revolved around whether withdrawing treatment constituted unlawful killing or was an act of allowing nature to take its course.
Legal Issues Considered
The House of Lords had no direct precedent to follow, given that medical advancements had only recently made such prolonged life support possible. The main legal and ethical issues included:
- Sanctity of Life vs. Quality of Life
- Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) guarantees the right to life, but should it also mean a right to be kept alive at all costs?
- The court considered whether prolonging life in a permanent vegetative state served any meaningful purpose.
- Best Interests of the Patient
- Since Tony Bland could not express his wishes, the court had to determine what was in his best interests.
- Given his zero prospects of recovery, it was deemed in his best interests not to prolong suffering artificially.
- Distinguishing Between Acts and Omissions
- The law generally criminalises acts that cause death but allows omissions in specific cases.
- The House of Lords concluded that withdrawing food and hydration was an “omission,” not an active killing, and therefore not unlawful euthanasia.
Outcome
The court ruled in favour of allowing withdrawal of treatment, setting a precedent for similar cases. This judgment paved the way for future debates on advance directives (living wills), now legally recognised as “advance decisions”, allowing individuals to refuse life-sustaining treatment before losing capacity.
Case 2: R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2014] – The Right to Assisted Dying?
Unlike Bland, whose case involved passive euthanasia (withdrawal of treatment), Tony Nicklinson and Paul Lamb sought an active intervention to end their lives.
- Tony Nicklinson suffered from locked-in syndrome after a stroke, leaving him completely paralyzed except for minimal eye movement.
- Paul Lamb was paralysed after a car accident and, like Nicklinson, was unable to end his life without assistance.
Both men wanted a court declaration that a doctor could lawfully assist in their deaths, arguing that the Suicide Act 1961 (which criminalises assisting suicide) was incompatible with Article 8 of the ECHR (right to private and family life).
Legal Issues Considered
- Does the UK’s Ban on Assisted Suicide Violate Article 8 of the ECHR?
- The court acknowledged that Article 8 protects personal autonomy, including decisions about one’s own death.
- However, it held that the UK was within its “margin of appreciation” (discretion) under the ECHR to maintain a blanket prohibition on assisted suicide.
- Should the Courts or Parliament Decide on Euthanasia Laws?
- Lord Sumption ruled that legalising assisted dying required a change in legislation rather than a judicial ruling.
- The court emphasised that such issues involve moral and ethical complexities best resolved through Parliamentary debate rather than judicial activism.
- Risk to Vulnerable Individuals
- Opponents of assisted suicide argue that legalising it could lead to coerced euthanasia of the elderly, disabled, or those facing economic pressure.
- The ruling maintained that the law must protect the vulnerable, even at the cost of denying individual autonomy.
Outcome
The Supreme Court rejected the claim, ruling that Parliament should decide whether to change the law on assisted dying. This remains one of the most debated topics in modern medical law, with ongoing campaigns for legislative reform.
Key Takeaways: Where Do We Stand Today?
- Advance Directives are Now Legal
- Following Bland, patients can now make advance decisions (living wills) to refuse life-sustaining treatment if they lose capacity.
- Assisted Suicide Remains Illegal
- Unlike countries such as Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Canada, the UK still criminalises assisted suicide.
- However, recent Parliamentary debates suggest shifting public attitudes towards potential reforms.
- Parliamentary Responsibility for Law Reform
- Nicklinson’s case reaffirmed that courts should not legislate on moral issues, leaving it to elected representatives.
- This aligns with the view that public policy should be democratically debated rather than imposed by judicial rulings.
The cases of Bland and Nicklinson highlight the complex interplay between law, medicine, and ethics. While the courts have clarified some aspects of end-of-life care, the broader question of assisted dying remains unsettled.
As society evolves and medical technologies advance, the pressure on Parliament to address assisted dying laws will likely intensify. Until then, the law remains a delicate balance between autonomy, ethics, and safeguarding the vulnerable.
- Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] – Full case judgment: BAILII Link
- R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2014] – Supreme Court Judgment: Supreme Court Link
- Advance Decision to Refuse Treatment (Living Will) – NHS Guidance
Post Comment