End of Life Decisions Notes
End of Life Decisions Notes
End of Life Decisions Notes
What is the definition of death? The Royal College of Physicians in 1995 stated that “it is
suggested that it is the irreversible loss of the capacity for consciousness combined with the
irreversible loss of capability to breathe should be considered the definition of death.”
The other suggestion would be brain stem death – this is what has been used by
physicians to determine whether a person is alive or not.
Brain stem death refers to a situation where the parts of the brain which operate
respiration and heart beat are dead and there is no electrical impulse. Consciousness or
sensate awareness will have decayed. The patient has no capacity to live and will never
recover it.
QUESTION: Is or Should there be a right to die? Is it part of the right to life? Should
there be a right to die with dignity? Should it be an extenstion of the right to dignity?
The Supreme Court in Canada allowed physician assisted suicide under Exclusive
circumstances. See: Carter v Canada (AG), 2015 SCC 5 – the court found that the
prohibition on physician assisted dying infringed the right to life, liberty and security of
the person in a manner that was not in accordance with the principles of fundamental
justice.
EUTHANASIA
Originating from Greece – where the concept connotes a good death. (Can death ever be
a good thing?) – The deliberate bringing about of death in order to end suffering from a
painful and chronic illness - it is meant to be an aspect of mercy
Can the right to die be considered as an aspect of the right to life?
Types of euthanasia
5. Non – voluntary – ending the life of a patient who is unable to make a decision
for themselves – the decision is either made by a guardian or by the doctors
themselves e.g. a mentally incapacitated patient
Is mercy killing legal? Where someone would deliberately and specifically perform an
act to accelerate death to end suffering. The intention and not the motive is the pre-
requisite. In Kenya therefore, this is illegal and would be considered murder. The
ingredients for murder are the killing itself (actus reus) and malice aforethought (the
mens rea). It does not matter what the motive was, even if it was a benevolent motive.
When the right to life becomes expensive – the prolonging of life becomes cost
prohibitive
When the patient or family demands that life prolonging treatment continues
until the patient dies naturally – see the case of former Nyeri MP Wanyiri Kihoro
where his wife had been in a coma for 2 years.
These discussions may not have reached our courts but they have been considered in
other western jurisdictions such as the UK
See the case of Airedale NHS Trust v Tony Bland (1993)
Tony bland was one of the victims of the Hillsborough disaster of 1989.
He was in a PVS for more than three years
His brain stem was still alive but it had suffered irreversible harm. It was
diagnosed and prognosed that he would never regain any form of consciousness
He was not on life support and was being fed by a naso – gastrol tube
The Trust wanted it declared by the Court that it would be lawful to withdraw
treatment
Held by the Court
The object of medical care and treatment was to benefit the patient – being PVS
was not in the best interests of the patient
The doctors responsible for the treatment were not under a duty to continue such
treatment. Cessation of treatment is an omission and would only be criminal if
the doctor had a duty to continue the treatment.
This case brings about the interesting concept of death in the best interest of the patient
The Bland case was followed in the case of Frenchay v NHS Trust (1994)
A teenager took a drug overdose and suffered from acute brain damage
He was treated in hospital where it was diagnosed that he was in PVS
He was fed through a naso-gatral tube.
The tube became disconnected perhaps as a result of the patients movement
The tube could not be reconnected and the only alternative would be to insert
another one. But they were of the view that continued treatment would not be in
the best interests of the patient.
They sought declaratory orders that it would be lawful not to reinsert the tube.
The Court granted the orders
Patients with terminal illnesses – the difference between withdrawing treatment and
actively terminating the life of the terminally ill
See the Diane Pretty Case (2002)
Diane Pretty was 43 and paralyzed and suffering from motor neurone disease
which is a degenerative and fatal disease
She faced the prospect of dying a humiliating death
She had mental capacity but her physical incapacity rendered her unable to take
her own life
She requested her husband to carry out the process. He was willing to do so
provided that he would be immune to prosecution
The DPP refused to grant this immunity. The HL and the European Court of
Human Rights both refused to allow him to do so and also held that there was no
breach of human rights
See the Canadian Supreme Court case – Carter v Canada (2015) where the court found
that the prohibition against physician assisted dying violated the rights of competent
adults who were suffering intolerably as a result of a grievous and irremediable
medication condition