IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v30y2022i1p81-109..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dying with Assistance: The Call for an Inquiry, the Power of a declaration, the role of evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Nataly Papadopoulou

Abstract

The article analyses recent legal challenges of the prohibition of assisted suicide in England and Wales to review where we are in the debate for reform, and where we can go. The article, principally, advocates for an evidence-based new governmental inquiry. Aside the fact that this is widely-supported by various interested parties, this argument stems from the approach recently attempted by claimants in English courts in challenging the prohibition of assisted suicide, and that is, an evidence-based approach to judicial review. As this article discusses, the review of ‘the available evidence’ is unlikely to be done by English courts, but what this new legal strategy does is to send a strong message to Parliament and the government that there is a need to identify and examine the evidence. The findings of a fresh governmental inquiry, will allow Parliament to engage in a careful, informed review of the law and practice on assisted suicide and decide whether there is another way to protect the vulnerable, while respecting individual choice. The benefits of this inquiry go beyond England and Wales; an English (or indeed UK-wide) inquiry will inform discussions currently taking place elsewhere, and vice versa.

Suggested Citation

  • Nataly Papadopoulou, 2022. "Dying with Assistance: The Call for an Inquiry, the Power of a declaration, the role of evidence," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(1), pages 81-109.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:30:y:2022:i:1:p:81-109.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwab048
    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:81-109.. 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.