{"title":"Necessity, private defence and the killing of Mary.","authors":"J Rogers","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article examines the reasons used by the Court of Appeal in Re A (Children) to authorise and justify an operation which would inevitably kill the weaker of a pair of conjoined twins in order to offer the stronger twin a good chance of a long and happy life. The crux of the judgment was that a utilitarian theory of necessity could justify this operation. This article seeks to define the criminal law defences at issue in the case and to argue that utilitarian necessity is such a dangerous doctrine that it should never be employed if there is any other defence which can be made to serve the same purpose--as there was in the present case.</p>","PeriodicalId":81026,"journal":{"name":"Criminal law review (London, England)","volume":" ","pages":"515-26"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Criminal law review (London, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This article examines the reasons used by the Court of Appeal in Re A (Children) to authorise and justify an operation which would inevitably kill the weaker of a pair of conjoined twins in order to offer the stronger twin a good chance of a long and happy life. The crux of the judgment was that a utilitarian theory of necessity could justify this operation. This article seeks to define the criminal law defences at issue in the case and to argue that utilitarian necessity is such a dangerous doctrine that it should never be employed if there is any other defence which can be made to serve the same purpose--as there was in the present case.