Abstract

Simon Woods proposes that we ought to re-orientate clinical decisions at the end of life back towards the patient, so as to honour his or her account of their “global” interests. Woods condemns the current medico-legal approach for remaining too closely tethered to the views of doctors. In this response, I trace the story of Mrs Kelly Taylor, who sought to be sedated and have life-sustaining treatment withdrawn, and I do so in order to show not only why Woods is right to detect an asymmetry in the law but also why there is more to the legal landscape than first appears. I argue that patient choice is indeed bounded—most obviously by the views of the doctors (and the judges), but no less significantly by so-called “public interest” concerns. Woods’ proposal implicitly, and rightly, forces reconsideration of these public interest dimensions of medico-legal decision-making. This often invisible boundary is not presently granted the attention it deserves (not least by the judges themselves). However, as soon as we delve into the ethical values at stake, then it becomes apparent that there are many more questions to be asked regarding their meaning and interaction before we can determine the appropriate ethical prism through which to view the health care endeavour in English medical law