rder Description1.) “In light of the ruling of the Supreme Court in R (on the application of Jane Nicklinson and Paul Lamb) v Ministry of Justice [2014] UKSC 38, assisted dying needs to be legalised in England and Wales.” Discuss
CasesR v Cox (1992) 12 BMLR 38 (Winchester CC)R v Inglis [2010] EWCA Crim 2637Airedale N.H.S. Trust Respondents v. Bland (1993) AC 789 (HL)Pretty v UK (2002) 35 EHHR 1, paras 7-12, 36-78, 84-90NHS Trust A v M, NHS Trust B v H [2001] Fam 348NHS Trust v A (An Adult) [2005] EWCA Civ 1145B NHS Trust v J [2006] EWHC 315In Re M (An Adult)R (on the application of Jane Nicklinson and Paul Lamb) v Ministry of Justice; R (AM) v DPP [2014] UKSC 38, paras 9-11, 57, 60, 132-149, 236-256Regina (Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions (Society for the Protection of Unborn Children intervening) (HL) [2009] 3 W.L.R. 403, paras.17, 30-56 per Lord Hope, paras 64-69 per Baroness HaleTextbookJackson, pp.892 (middle) to 898 (middle), 909-930John Keown, Euthanasia, Ethics and Public Policy, (CUP: Cambridge 2002), 37-146Kate Greasley, ‘R. (Purdy) v DPP and the case for wilful blindness’, (2010) 30 OJLS 301-326
Other sources, Articles and JournalsMichael Freeman, ‘Denying death its dominion: thoughts on the Diane Pretty case’, (2002) 10 Medical Law Review 245-207J.K. Mason, ‘Unalike as two peas? R (on the application of Purdy) v DPP’, (2009) 13 Edinburgh Law Review 298-302Jonathan Rogers, ‘Prosecutorial policies, prosecutorial systems, and the Purdy litigation’, (2010) 7 Criminal Law Review 543-564Crown Prosecution Service, Policy for Prosecutors in Respect of Cases of Encouraging or Assisting Suicide, www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/assisted_suicide_policy.htmlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/25/kay-gilderdale-devoted-motherhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/25/mercy-killing-kay-gilderdale-clearedhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/26/trial-kay-gilderdale-dpp-starmerGlenys Williams, ‘Assisting Suicide, the Code for Crown Prosecutors and the DPP’s Discretion’, (2010) 39 Common Law World Review 181Assisted Dying Bill, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2014-2015/0006/15006.pdfAssisted Dying Bill Explanatory Notes, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2014-2015/0006/en/15006en.pdfSabine Michalowski, ‘Relying on common law defences to legalise assisted dying: problems and possibilities’, (2013) 21 Medical Law Review 337-370Adam Jackson, ‘”Thou shalt not kill; but needst not strive officiously to keep alive”: further clarification of the law regarding mercy killing, euthanasia and assisted suicide’, (2013) 77 Journal of Criminal Law, 468-475Findlay Stark, ‘Necessity and Nicklinson’, (2013) Criminal Law Review 949
2.) “For no good reason, the law on assisted reproduction and surrogacy is too restrictive to sufficiently protect the interest of potential parents to create a particular type of family in a particular way.” Discuss critically with reference to the relevant statutory and case law.
Cases
R. v. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, ex parte Blood [1999] Fam 151Evans v UK (Application No.6339/05), Grand Chamber, Decision of 10 April 2007Elizabeth Warren v Care Fertility (Northampton) Ltd and Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2014] EWHC 602 (Fam)L v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority & Another [2008] EWHC 2149 (Fam)Re R (a child) [2003] EWCA Civ 182, [2003] 2 WLR 1485Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust v A and Others [2003] EWHC 259, [2003] 1 FLR 1091Re R (a child) [2003] EWCA Civ 182, [2003] 2 WLR 1485AB v CD [2013] EWHC 1418 (Fam)AB v CD [2013] EWHC 1418 (Fam)T v B [2010] EWHC 1444 (Fam)Re G (A Child) [2013] EWHC 134 (Fam)In the Matter of D and L (Minors) (Surrogacy) [2012] EWHC 2631 (Fam)Re PM [2013] EWHC 2328 (Fam)X and another (Children (Parental Order: Foreign Surrogacy) [2008] EWHC 3030 (Fam)Re X (A Child) (Surrogacy: Time limit) [2014] EWHC 3135 (Fam)In re L (A Child) (Parental Order: Foreign Surrogacy) [2010] EWHC 3146 (Fam)In the Matter of TT (A Minor) [2011] EWHC 33 (Fam)
TextbookJackson, pp.788 (middle) to 794 (middle)Jackson, pp.838 to 855 (middle)
Other sources, Articles, Journals
Morgan, Lee, “In the Name of the Father? Ex parte Blood: Dealing with Novelty and Anomaly” (1997) 60 MLR 840
Morris, ‘Evans v United Kingdom: Paradigms of parenting’, (2007) 70 MLR 992
Sheldon, ‘Fragmenting fatherhood: the regulation of reproductive technologies’, (2005) 68 MLR 523Julie Wallbank, Chris Dietz, ‘Lesbian mothers, fathers and other animals: is the political personal in multiple parent families’, (2013) 25 Child and Family Law Quarterly 451-470Leanne Smith, ‘Tangling the web of legal parenthood: legal responses to the use of known donors in lesbian parenting arrangements’, (2013) 33 Legal Studies 355-381Quintavalle (Comment on Reproductive Ethics) v HFEA [2005] UKHL 28Jackson, pp.810 (middle) to 829 (top)Sheldon, Wilkinson, ‘Hashmi and Whitaker: an unjustifiable and misguided distinction?’ (2004) 12 Medical Law Review 137Pattinson, Medical Law and Ethics (Sweet & Maxwell: 2nd ed. London 2009, pp.290 (middle) to 297 (middle)Stephen Wilkinson, ‘Sexism, sex selection and “family balancing”’, (2008) 16 Medical Law Review 369-389Timothy Mark Krahn, ‘Regulating preimplantation genetic diagnosis: the case of Down’s syndrome’, (2011) 19 Medical Law Review 157-191Wallbank, ‘Too many mothers? Surrogacy, kinship and the welfare of the child’, (2002) 10 Medical Law Review 271-294Freeman, ‘Does surrogacy have a future after Brazier?’ (1999) 7 Medical Law Review 1-20Kirsty Horsey, Sally Sheldon, ‘Still hazy after all these years: the law regulating surrogacy’ (2012) 20 Medical Law Review 67-89

 

"Are you looking for this answer? We can Help click Order Now"