The Human Rights Act 1998 and the individual's right to treatment.
The right to demand treatment--even when life-saving--is not recognised by English common law. The courts have consistently stated that they do not have the jurisdiction to order a doctor to perform a particular treatment. This article considers whether the impending Human Rights Act 1998 can be interpreted so as to allow this right. While a general right to treatment is discussed the argument focuses on life-saving treatment. As an illustration, the David Glass case will be analysed and the impact of the Human Rights Act will be examined by considering how the judgment might have differed had the Act been in force.
Maclean
A R
AR
Department of Law, Southampton University, UK.
D000328:Adult; D002648:Child; D002961:Civil Rights / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D003657:Decision Making; D019988:Children with Disabilities; D034462:Dissent and Disputes; D006806:Human Rights / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006801:Humans; D033222:Judicial Role; D007878:Legislation as Topic; D008020:Life Support Care / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D018447:Medical Futility; D010290:Parents; D028701:Patient Rights / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D010820:Physicians; D011788:Quality of Life; D016079:Refusal to Treat / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D016414:Resuscitation Orders; D006113:United Kingdom; D026712:Value of Life; D028761:Withholding Treatment / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*