Medical Treatment Withdrawal And Criminal Liability
Overview
The withdrawal or withholding of medical treatment, especially life-sustaining treatment such as ventilation or artificial nutrition, raises complex legal and ethical questions. Central to these is whether such withdrawal constitutes lawful withdrawal of treatment or unlawful killing, potentially attracting criminal liability for acts like murder or manslaughter.
Key Legal Issues
Consent and autonomy: Does the patient or their proxy consent to withdrawal?
Intention: Is the withdrawal intended to cause death, or is death a foreseen but unintended consequence?
Distinction between acts and omissions: Is withdrawal an omission (letting die) or an act (causing death)?
Best interests: Is withdrawal in the patient’s best interests, medically and legally?
Doctrine of double effect: Can death be foreseen but not intended if treatment withdrawal is lawful?
⚖️ Key Cases on Medical Treatment Withdrawal and Criminal Liability
1. Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789 (UK House of Lords)
Facts: Tony Bland was in a persistent vegetative state following the Hillsborough disaster. Doctors sought permission to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration.
Issue: Whether withdrawing life-sustaining treatment in this context constitutes unlawful killing.
Holding: The House of Lords ruled that withdrawal was lawful when in the patient’s best interests, recognizing it as an omission rather than an act of killing.
Significance:
Established that withdrawing treatment can be lawful, not criminal, if done in best interests.
Recognized withdrawal as an omission, not causing death but allowing natural death.
2. R v. Bland [1995] 1 All ER 821 (Criminal Appeal)
Facts: Prosecution challenged the legality of withdrawal of treatment in Bland’s case.
Holding: The Court of Appeal upheld the House of Lords’ decision, affirming no criminal liability for withdrawal in such circumstances.
Significance:
Reaffirmed legal distinction between acts and omissions.
Set precedent that lawful withdrawal does not constitute murder or manslaughter.
3. R v. Malcherek; R v. Steel [1981] 1 WLR 690
Facts: Doctors switched off life support machines for two patients who were brain dead.
Issue: Whether turning off life support causes death or merely recognizes death.
Holding: Court ruled that brain death constitutes legal death; switching off life support is not an act causing death.
Significance:
Reinforced concept of brain death as legal death.
Clarified that withdrawal post-brain death is not criminal.
4. R (on the application of Burke) v General Medical Council [2005] EWHC 1003 (Admin)
Facts: Medical staff wished to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration from a patient in a minimally conscious state; family opposed.
Issue: Whether withdrawal without court approval was lawful.
Holding: Court held withdrawal could be lawful if in patient’s best interests, but emphasized need for careful consideration and sometimes court oversight.
Significance:
Emphasized importance of best interests in treatment withdrawal.
Highlighted role of court when disputes arise.
5. NHS Trust A v M [2001] EWHC Fam 1
Facts: Patient in a minimally conscious state; court had to decide on withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration.
Holding: Withdrawal was lawful if in patient’s best interests, even if it resulted in death.
Significance:
Clarified scope of best interests to include quality of life considerations.
Supported lawful withdrawal without criminal liability if criteria met.
6. Re B (Adult: Refusal of Medical Treatment) [2002] EWHC 429 (Fam)
Facts: Competent adult refused life-saving treatment.
Holding: Court upheld patient’s right to refuse treatment, even if this led to death.
Significance:
Affirmed patient autonomy.
Confirmed that respecting refusal avoids criminal liability for medical staff.
7. R v. Inglis [2010] EWCA Crim 2636
Facts: Father administered a lethal injection to his severely brain-damaged daughter after doctors withdrew life support.
Issue: Whether this act was lawful or criminal.
Holding: Court convicted the father of murder; active euthanasia remains unlawful.
Significance:
Distinguished active euthanasia (illegal) from passive euthanasia (lawful withdrawal).
Confirmed criminal liability for direct acts causing death.
Summary Table
| Case | Year | Legal Principle Established |
|---|---|---|
| Airedale NHS Trust v Bland | 1993 | Lawful withdrawal of treatment as omission, no criminal liability. |
| R v. Bland | 1995 | Confirmed distinction between acts and omissions in treatment withdrawal. |
| R v. Malcherek; R v. Steel | 1981 | Brain death equals legal death; withdrawal of support lawful. |
| R (Burke) v GMC | 2005 | Emphasized best interests and court role in withdrawal disputes. |
| NHS Trust A v M | 2001 | Quality of life considered in best interests; lawful withdrawal supported. |
| Re B (Adult: Refusal) | 2002 | Competent adult’s refusal of treatment respected, avoiding liability. |
| R v. Inglis | 2010 | Active euthanasia is unlawful and punishable as murder. |
Key Legal Principles Summarized
Withdrawal of medical treatment, including life-sustaining treatment, is lawful if it is in the patient’s best interests or respects their competent refusal.
The law distinguishes between acts (e.g., administering lethal injection) and omissions (withdrawing treatment).
Withdrawal of treatment is generally considered an omission allowing death to occur naturally.
Brain death is legally death; withdrawal after brain death is not killing.
Active euthanasia remains illegal and carries criminal liability.
Courts often intervene when disputes arise, ensuring protection of vulnerable patients.
Conclusion
The UK legal framework balances respect for patient autonomy, medical judgment, and ethical concerns with criminal law. Withdrawal of treatment, when done lawfully, avoids criminal liability because it is treated as an omission and not an act of killing. The landmark cases have established clear boundaries between lawful withdrawal and unlawful killing, emphasizing best interests, consent, and medical standards.
RELATED Blog
0 comments