Non-admission and discontinuation of medical treatment at the end of life in Germany and England

Samantha Halliday, Lars Witteck

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This article analyses the law relating to withholding and withdrawing life-prolonging medical treatment in Germany and England & Wales. Recent case law from both jurisdictions is considered and contrasted with jurisprudence from the United States of America. Whilst all three jurisdictions recognise the ability of a competent patient to refuse life-prolonging treatment, it is argued that the models of decision-making adopted in relation to patients lacking capacity are inherently flawed. It is suggested that where the patient lacks capacity, neither the autonomy model of decision-making (encompassing the presumed will approach adopted in Germany and the substituted judgement approach adopted in the USA), nor the best interests model (adopted in England & Wales) can adequately protect the interests (particularly the ‘critical’ interests) of the affected individual.
Translated title of the contributionNon-admission and discontinuation of medical treatment at the end of life in Germany and England
LanguageGerman
Pages752-763
Number of pages12
JournalJuristen Zeitung
Volume57
Issue number15/16
Publication statusPublished - 9 Aug 2002
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

physician's care
jurisdiction
decision making
case law
jurisprudence
autonomy
Law
lack
ability

Cite this

Halliday, Samantha ; Witteck, Lars. / Nichtaufnahme und Abbruch einer medizinischen Behandlung am Lebensende in Deutschland und England. In: Juristen Zeitung . 2002 ; Vol. 57, No. 15/16. pp. 752-763.
@article{a019b15b766b4a1da310ea786fd22d48,
title = "Nichtaufnahme und Abbruch einer medizinischen Behandlung am Lebensende in Deutschland und England",
abstract = "This article analyses the law relating to withholding and withdrawing life-prolonging medical treatment in Germany and England & Wales. Recent case law from both jurisdictions is considered and contrasted with jurisprudence from the United States of America. Whilst all three jurisdictions recognise the ability of a competent patient to refuse life-prolonging treatment, it is argued that the models of decision-making adopted in relation to patients lacking capacity are inherently flawed. It is suggested that where the patient lacks capacity, neither the autonomy model of decision-making (encompassing the presumed will approach adopted in Germany and the substituted judgement approach adopted in the USA), nor the best interests model (adopted in England & Wales) can adequately protect the interests (particularly the ‘critical’ interests) of the affected individual.",
author = "Samantha Halliday and Lars Witteck",
year = "2002",
month = "8",
day = "9",
language = "German",
volume = "57",
pages = "752--763",
journal = "Juristen Zeitung",
issn = "0022-6882",
number = "15/16",

}

Nichtaufnahme und Abbruch einer medizinischen Behandlung am Lebensende in Deutschland und England. / Halliday, Samantha; Witteck, Lars.

In: Juristen Zeitung , Vol. 57, No. 15/16, 09.08.2002, p. 752-763.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Nichtaufnahme und Abbruch einer medizinischen Behandlung am Lebensende in Deutschland und England

AU - Halliday, Samantha

AU - Witteck, Lars

PY - 2002/8/9

Y1 - 2002/8/9

N2 - This article analyses the law relating to withholding and withdrawing life-prolonging medical treatment in Germany and England & Wales. Recent case law from both jurisdictions is considered and contrasted with jurisprudence from the United States of America. Whilst all three jurisdictions recognise the ability of a competent patient to refuse life-prolonging treatment, it is argued that the models of decision-making adopted in relation to patients lacking capacity are inherently flawed. It is suggested that where the patient lacks capacity, neither the autonomy model of decision-making (encompassing the presumed will approach adopted in Germany and the substituted judgement approach adopted in the USA), nor the best interests model (adopted in England & Wales) can adequately protect the interests (particularly the ‘critical’ interests) of the affected individual.

AB - This article analyses the law relating to withholding and withdrawing life-prolonging medical treatment in Germany and England & Wales. Recent case law from both jurisdictions is considered and contrasted with jurisprudence from the United States of America. Whilst all three jurisdictions recognise the ability of a competent patient to refuse life-prolonging treatment, it is argued that the models of decision-making adopted in relation to patients lacking capacity are inherently flawed. It is suggested that where the patient lacks capacity, neither the autonomy model of decision-making (encompassing the presumed will approach adopted in Germany and the substituted judgement approach adopted in the USA), nor the best interests model (adopted in England & Wales) can adequately protect the interests (particularly the ‘critical’ interests) of the affected individual.

UR - https://www.mohr.de/zeitschriften/juristenzeitung-jz

M3 - Article

VL - 57

SP - 752

EP - 763

JO - Juristen Zeitung

T2 - Juristen Zeitung

JF - Juristen Zeitung

SN - 0022-6882

IS - 15/16

ER -