Ferguson P R
Department of Law, University of Dundee, Scotland.
J Med Ethics. 1997 Dec;23(6):368-72. doi: 10.1136/jme.23.6.368.
Several cases which have been considered by the courts in recent years have highlighted the legal dilemmas facing doctors whose decisions result in the ending of a patient's life. This paper considers the case of Dr Cox, who was convicted of attempting to murder one of his patients, and explores the roles of motive, diminished responsibility and consent in cases of "mercy killing". The Cox decision is compared to that of Tony Bland and Janet Johnstone, in which the patients were in a persistent vegetative state. In all three cases, the doctors believed that their patients' quality of life was so poor that their continued existence was of no benefit to them, and decided that their lives should not be unduly prolonged, yet the doctor who was prosecuted was the one whose dying patient had requested that her death be hastened. The paper examines the law's seemingly contradictory approaches to such cases.
近年来法院审理的几起案件凸显了医生面临的法律困境,这些医生的决定导致了患者生命的终结。本文探讨了考克斯医生的案例,他被判企图谋杀一名患者,并探讨了“安乐死”案件中动机、减轻责任和同意的作用。将考克斯案的判决与托尼·布兰德和珍妮特·约翰斯通案的判决进行了比较,在这两起案件中患者处于持续植物人状态。在所有这三起案件中,医生们都认为他们患者的生活质量太差,以至于他们的继续存活对他们没有任何益处,并决定不应过度延长他们的生命,然而被起诉的医生却是其濒死患者要求加速其死亡的那位。本文审视了法律对此类案件看似矛盾的处理方式。