{"title":"另一种死法?bart NHS信托诉Dance and Battersbee","authors":"B. Lyons, M. Donnelly","doi":"10.1177/09685332231159363","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The case of Archie Battersbee, a 12-year-old boy who suffered a catastrophic hypoxic brain injury, was the subject of several Family Division and Appeal Court hearings between April and August 2022. During the protracted legal process, appeals were made by the family to the Supreme Court, the European Court of Human Rights, and the United Nations’ Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD Committee). These were unsuccessful in achieving a stay on the withdrawal of life-sustaining interventions, whose continuance the Family Division of the High Court had found not to be in Archie’s best interests. This commentary focuses on two novel aspects of the proceedings: the Court of Appeal’s overturning of Arbuthnot J’s conclusion that Archie was brainstem dead, and the CRPD Committee’s intervention in response to the family’s appeal.","PeriodicalId":39602,"journal":{"name":"Medical Law International","volume":"23 1","pages":"159 - 173"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A different kind of death? Barts NHS Trust v Dance and Battersbee\",\"authors\":\"B. Lyons, M. Donnelly\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09685332231159363\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The case of Archie Battersbee, a 12-year-old boy who suffered a catastrophic hypoxic brain injury, was the subject of several Family Division and Appeal Court hearings between April and August 2022. During the protracted legal process, appeals were made by the family to the Supreme Court, the European Court of Human Rights, and the United Nations’ Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD Committee). These were unsuccessful in achieving a stay on the withdrawal of life-sustaining interventions, whose continuance the Family Division of the High Court had found not to be in Archie’s best interests. This commentary focuses on two novel aspects of the proceedings: the Court of Appeal’s overturning of Arbuthnot J’s conclusion that Archie was brainstem dead, and the CRPD Committee’s intervention in response to the family’s appeal.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39602,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Law International\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"159 - 173\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Law International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09685332231159363\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Law International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09685332231159363","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
A different kind of death? Barts NHS Trust v Dance and Battersbee
The case of Archie Battersbee, a 12-year-old boy who suffered a catastrophic hypoxic brain injury, was the subject of several Family Division and Appeal Court hearings between April and August 2022. During the protracted legal process, appeals were made by the family to the Supreme Court, the European Court of Human Rights, and the United Nations’ Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD Committee). These were unsuccessful in achieving a stay on the withdrawal of life-sustaining interventions, whose continuance the Family Division of the High Court had found not to be in Archie’s best interests. This commentary focuses on two novel aspects of the proceedings: the Court of Appeal’s overturning of Arbuthnot J’s conclusion that Archie was brainstem dead, and the CRPD Committee’s intervention in response to the family’s appeal.
期刊介绍:
The scope includes: Clinical Negligence. Health Matters Affecting Civil Liberties. Forensic Medicine. Determination of Death. Organ and Tissue Transplantation. End of Life Decisions. Legal and Ethical Issues in Medical Treatment. Confidentiality. Access to Medical Records. Medical Complaints Procedures. Professional Discipline. Employment Law and Legal Issues within NHS. Resource Allocation in Health Care. Mental Health Law. Misuse of Drugs. Legal and Ethical Issues concerning Human Reproduction. Therapeutic Products. Medical Research. Cloning. Gene Therapy. Genetic Testing and Screening. And Related Topics.