The Student Room Group
Fredster
How did the case of Bland help to distinguish Acts and Omissions? did this case help clear the distinction or did it create mre of a confusion?


Bland is case of the NHS trust applying to turn off the life support machine of Mr Bland, right? If so...

I don't think that it did that much to clear the distinction between Acts and Omissions. It was another one of those medical cases that are especially borderline and often used by academic commentators (such as J. C Smith) to point out just how unclear the distinction is.

The judgments in the case are quite clear though, definitely worth a read.
Lord Goff (I think) puts the distinction between Acts and Omissions quite clearly with respect to the case. The reason that I said before that the case doesn't really "clear the distinction" is because it has come under fire by commentators after it was decided.
This was a long time ago for me but I think I can remeber...

The guy had been put on a life support machine and was in a Permanent Vegitative State, right?

I believe, if I remember correctly, that the Lords decided that turning the machine off (and thus killing him) would be considered the same as having never put it on in the first place. Since doctors had no legal duty to preserve someone's life in this state if in their expert opinion it would be fruitless, they could do this legally.

Not sure how this helps to distinguish between acts and omissions, though. Just seems to give doctors more power to terminate life when they consider it the right thing to do (like in this case the patient was not going to recover and was simply using up a valuable piece of equipment & power which could be used more beneficially on another person).

Latest

Trending

Trending