Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Winter;18(4):541-63.
doi: 10.1093/medlaw/fwq028.

Assisted dying and the context of debate: 'medical law' versus 'end-of-life law'

John Coggon  1
Affiliations

Assisted dying and the context of debate: 'medical law' versus 'end-of-life law'

John Coggon. Med Law Rev. 2010 Winter.

Abstract

This paper provides a reflective analysis of the nature of normative critiques of law generally, and within medical law specifically. It first seeks to establish the context within which critical analysis of law and legal measures takes place, and develops an argument that critiques should focus on political norms. Entailed in this claim is the contention that positions that seek to address controversial social problems can not resort simply to moral philosophy. It then provides a brief account of political liberalism that can contain and expose normative constraints on questions of moral and social contention. The focus then moves to a more direct reflection on medico-legal analysis. Considering both medical law as a discipline, and the study of end-of-life issues, the argument highlights the range of relevant issues that must be accounted for, and addresses the question of whether these are well conceived as ones of medical law. It is argued that a political framing offers a good general analytic context, but that when working in legal sub-disciplines analysts risk allowing 'locally' pertinent norms to dominate or unduly constrain wider debate. Thus it is questioned whether 'medical law' provides a coherent frame for social questions related to assisted-dying.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Regarding medical law, this principle is evidenced particularly in relation to mental capacity—see especially Re T (Adult: Refusal of Treatment)[1993] Fam 95; Re C (Adult: Refusal of Medical Treatment) [1994] 1 All ER 819: Re MB (Medical treatment) [1997] 2 FLR 426; St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust v. S [1998] 3 WLR 936; Ms B v. An NHS Hospital Trust [2002] 2 All ER 449; Re Z (Local Authority: Duty) [2005] 1 WLR 959; and the Mental Capacity Act 2005—and that relating to provision of information to patients—see especially Chester v. Afshar [2005] 1 AC134.

    1. On apparently self-regarding and consensual harms see especially R v. Brown [1994] 1 AC 212; R v. Cox [1993] Med. L. Rev. 1:2, 232; Pretty v. The DPP [2001] EWHC Admin 788; Pretty v. DPP [2002] 1 AC 800; Pretty v. UK (2002) 35 EHRR 1.

    1. Perhaps the most notable texts are

    2. Mill JS. In: On Liberty. Alexander Edward., editor. Broadview; 1999.

    3. ;

    4. Hart HLA. Law, Liberty, and Morality. Stanford University Press; Stanford: 1963.

    5. ;

    6. Berlin I. Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford University Press; Oxford: 1969.

    7. ; and Joel Feinberg’s four volumes on

    8. The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law. Oxford University Press; Oxford: 1987. 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990.

    1. Thus, eg, John Keown, who has written many moral critiques of the law in favour of the sanctity of life principle, also addresses the question on the terms of those who would refrain from legislating on empirical grounds concerning harms that will be caused:

    2. Keown J. Euthanasia, Ethics and Public Policy–An Argument Against Legalisation. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2002.
    1. Smith S. Evidence for the Practical Slippery Slope in the Debate on Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. MedLR. 2005;13:1, 17–44.

MeSH terms