Euthanasia and the Defence of Necessity : advocating a more appropriate legal response.

Law School

Keywords

Assisted suicide, Diminished responsibility, Doctors, Euthanasia, Intention, Necessity

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

Euthanasia and the Defence of Necessity : advocating a more appropriate legal response. / Ost, Suzanne.
In: Criminal Law Review, 2005, p. 355-370.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Bibtex

@article{d1f252b0e265443d811d4e1308fd4ea2,

title = "Euthanasia and the Defence of Necessity : advocating a more appropriate legal response.",

abstract = "This article addresses the question of whether the defence of necessity could be utilised in cases of euthanasia in the medical context. It challenges the application of the doctrine of double effect as a means of ascertaining the physician's primary intent and argues instead that the law should recognise that the physician faces a situation of necessity. It asserts that given the potential availability of the defence of diminished responsibility to a relative or spouse who carries out a mercy killing, not allowing the physician to utilise the defence of necessity may place him at greater risk of conviction for murder than the layperson.",

keywords = "Assisted suicide, Diminished responsibility, Doctors, Euthanasia, Intention, Necessity",

author = "Suzanne Ost",

year = "2005",

language = "English",

pages = "355--370",

journal = "Criminal Law Review",

issn = "0011-135X",

publisher = "Sweet and Maxwell Ltd.",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Euthanasia and the Defence of Necessity : advocating a more appropriate legal response.

AU - Ost, Suzanne

PY - 2005

Y1 - 2005

N2 - This article addresses the question of whether the defence of necessity could be utilised in cases of euthanasia in the medical context. It challenges the application of the doctrine of double effect as a means of ascertaining the physician's primary intent and argues instead that the law should recognise that the physician faces a situation of necessity. It asserts that given the potential availability of the defence of diminished responsibility to a relative or spouse who carries out a mercy killing, not allowing the physician to utilise the defence of necessity may place him at greater risk of conviction for murder than the layperson.

AB - This article addresses the question of whether the defence of necessity could be utilised in cases of euthanasia in the medical context. It challenges the application of the doctrine of double effect as a means of ascertaining the physician's primary intent and argues instead that the law should recognise that the physician faces a situation of necessity. It asserts that given the potential availability of the defence of diminished responsibility to a relative or spouse who carries out a mercy killing, not allowing the physician to utilise the defence of necessity may place him at greater risk of conviction for murder than the layperson.

KW - Assisted suicide

KW - Diminished responsibility

KW - Doctors

KW - Euthanasia

KW - Intention

KW - Necessity

M3 - Journal article

SP - 355

EP - 370

JO - Criminal Law Review

JF - Criminal Law Review

SN - 0011-135X

ER -

Research

Keywords