另一种死法?bart NHS信托诉Dance and Battersbee

Q2 Social Sciences
B. Lyons, M. Donnelly
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Archie Battersbee是一名12岁的男孩,他遭受了灾难性的缺氧性脑损伤,在2022年4月至8月期间,他是家庭庭和上诉法院几次听证会的主题。在旷日持久的法律程序中,该家庭向最高法院、欧洲人权法院和联合国残疾人权利委员会(CRPD委员会)提出上诉。这些措施未能成功地阻止撤回维持生命的干预措施,高等法院家事庭认为继续进行干预不符合阿奇的最大利益。这篇评论集中在诉讼程序的两个新颖方面:上诉法院推翻了Arbuthnot J关于Archie脑干死亡的结论,以及CRPD委员会对其家人上诉的干预。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Law International
Medical Law International Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信