![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
The General Medical Council recently found a doctor guilty of ‘serious professional misconduct’, following his instructions to withdraw nutrition from a stroke patient. The patient subsequently died. The Crown Prosecution Service declined to prosecute. This case serves to illustrate some of the problems with the law relating to withholding and withdrawing nutrition/hydration. From a rational perspective, it can be seen that the current law is contradictory, incongruent and unclear. The leading authority in this area (Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland [1993] 2 WLR 316) appears inconsistent with preceding law; furthermore, as the Crown Prosecution Service's decision indicates, the stated law does not appear to translate into practice, and the lawfulness of some ‘omissions’ remains open to question. However, the various ethical questions demand answers before the law can be amended in a defensible fashion.