IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v30y2022i1p137-149..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Whose Right Is It Anyway? The Duties Owed to a Deceased and to Surviving Family Members When Dealing with a Corpse: Brennan v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council and Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust [2021] 1 WLUK 429

Author

Listed:
  • Tina Davey
  • David Mead

Abstract

This commentary considers the case of Brennan, in which surviving family members successfully brought a Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) claim against a hospital and a council for the way in which they both treated a body post-mortem. Their failure to freeze it led to such a state of decomposition that it was unfit for viewing. The family argued this constituted an unjustified interference with their rights to family and private life. After a review of Strasbourg case law, the Leeds County Court found for them and awarded them damages under section 8 of the HRA. This commentary evaluates both the Strasbourg law and the way it was utilised and interpreted domestically. While agreeing with the outcome, the authors conclude that the Strasbourg case law does not line up four square—and instead they suggest that a different approach, accepting the legitimacy of a claim based on ‘memory-securing’, is warranted on the facts. The commentary also questions whether the court was correct in seeing the rights reposed in the surviving family, and offers the view that greater coherence to the law might be achieved if we conceive of the survivors as the vehicle for the exercise of rights by the deceased.

Suggested Citation

  • Tina Davey & David Mead, 2022. "Whose Right Is It Anyway? The Duties Owed to a Deceased and to Surviving Family Members When Dealing with a Corpse: Brennan v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council and Leeds Teaching Hospital," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(1), pages 137-149.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:30:y:2022:i:1:p:137-149.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwab029
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:30:y:2022:i:1:p:137-149.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/medlaw .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.