In their discussion paper of November 2020, Cooket alpresent a draft protocol for navigating circumstances in which emergency services are overwhelmed. Their paper suggests that COVID-related triage decisions should be based on clinical assessment, patient and family consultation, and a range of ethical considerations. In this response, we note that the protocol exhibits an ambiguity that is likely to result in irresolvable dilemmas when put into practice. This ambiguity is exemplified in the paper’s prime ethical imperative (to ‘save more lives (...) and more years of life’), which takes the form of an undefined conjunction whose practical implications are left unspecified. We see this ambiguity in the prime imperative as one manifestation of a broader set of tensions in the protocol. We show that the discipline of human rights provides an essential supplement to the ethical framework on which Cook and colleagues rely, providing a framework for understanding and working through triage dilemmas involving age, discrimination and equality. (shrink)

In 2014 the Essex Autonomy Project undertook a six month project, funded by the AHRC, to provide technical advice to the UK Ministry of Justice on the question of whether the Mental Capacity Act is compliant with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Over the course of the project, the EAP research team organised a series of public policy roundtables, hosted by the Ministry of Justice, and which brought together leading experts to discuss and debate (...) the issues. A one-day public conference was held at the Institute for Government in July. In September 2014, the EAP research team submitted its findings to the Ministry of Justice. (shrink)

In 2014 the Essex Autonomy Project undertook a six month project, funded by the AHRC, to provide technical advice to the UK Ministry of Justice on the question of whether the Mental Capacity Act is compliant with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Over the course of the project, the EAP research team organised a series of public policy roundtables, hosted by the Ministry of Justice, and which brought together leading experts to discuss and debate (...) the issues. A one-day public conference was held at the Institute for Government in July. In September 2014, the EAP research team submitted its findings to the Ministry of Justice. (shrink)

In 2014 the Essex Autonomy Project undertook a six month project, funded by the AHRC, to provide technical advice to the UK Ministry of Justice on the question of whether the Mental Capacity Act is compliant with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Over the course of the project, the EAP research team organised a series of public policy roundtables, hosted by the Ministry of Justice, and which brought together leading experts to discuss and debate (...) the issues. A one-day public conference was held at the Institute for Government in July. In September 2014, the EAP research team submitted its findings to the Ministry of Justice. (shrink)

English law gives the competent patient the right to refuse life-saving medical treatment, either contemporaneously or in an advance directive, and a physician commits a battery when treating a patient who validly refused treatment. However, with regard to the details of a physician's liability, many questions remain unanswered, and it is not at all clear under what circumstances a patient's tort action for unwanted life-saving treatment will succeed, and what remedies would be available to the patient. The article suggests that (...) a physician should be liable in battery for administering life-saving treatment, even if he/she had doubts about the validity of the patient's treatment refusal, unless a defence of reasonable mistake can be established. Furthermore, in case of a battery which resulted in keeping the patient alive, the patient should not only be able to claim nominal damages, but general and special damages, including mental and physical pain and suffering caused by the prolongation of the patient's life, should equally be available. (shrink)

Health care decision making for patients without decisional capacity is ethically and legally challenging. Advance directives (living wills) have proved to be of limited usefulness in clinical practice. Therefore, academic attention should focus more on substitute decision making by the next of kin. In this article, we comparatively analyse the legal approaches to substitute medical decision making in England and Germany. Based on the current ethico-legal discourse in both countries, three aspects of substitute decision making will be highlighted: (1) Should (...) there be a legally predefined order of relatives who serve as health care proxies? (2) What should be the respective roles and decisional powers of patient-appointed versus court-appointed substitute decision-makers? (3) Which criteria should be determined by law to guide substitute decision-makers? (shrink)