Letter: Patients' rights to refuse treatment
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: In the discussion following the case of the Winchester consultant, let us try to keep distinct three issues that are entirely separate.
The first issue is that of consent to medical treatment. In England and Wales it is already the law, and has been for a very long time, that a doctor may not treat a competent patient without the patient's consent. Following the case of Re v 'T' in the Court of Appeal, it appears clear that, provided the conditions specified in that case are satisfied, this principle extends to a refusal of consent expressed in advance, perhaps by way of a formal advance directive. On this basis, it is not necessary to change the law to make such advance directives enforceable: they already are. A doctor who complied with a valid refusal of consent would not only incur no legal liability, but would be guilty of assault if he or she did treat the patient contrary to their wishes.
The Terrence Higgins Trust, in co-operation with the Centre of Medical Law and Ethics at King's College, London, has recently launched a Living Will form designed for use by people with HIV and Aids, in which such advance directives can be made. The Winchester case has nothing to do with advance directives or refusal of consent generally.
The second issue is that of taking steps with the object of killing or accelerating death. This is what the Winchester case was about: the step taken in that case was the administration of a lethal injection. As the Winchester case has confirmed, giving a lethal injection is illegal in England and Wales, even at the request of a patient.
The third issue concerns a case such as that of Hillsborough victim Tony Bland, if (as we assume) he had not stated any views about medical treatment. Whether food and water may be withdrawn from a patient in a persistent negative state is unclear in law.
There are, of course, different views about what the law should be in such cases, but, just as in the Winchester case, they have nothing to do with consent to medical treatment, or with an advance directive refusing consent to medical treatment.
Yours faithfully,
SIMMY VIINIKKA
Solicitor, Advice Centre
Terrence Higgins Trust
ANDREW GRUBB
Executive Director
Centre of Medical Law and Ethics
King's College
University of London
London, EC1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments