IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v33y2025i2p11..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assisted dying, vulnerability, and the potential value of prospective legal authorization

Author

Listed:
  • Alexandra Mullock
  • Jonathan Lewis

Abstract

Concern for vulnerable people is a crucial issue when considering the legalization of assisted dying (AD), but the meaning and normative significance of vulnerability in this context is under-explored. We examine vulnerability and the protective obligation through the lens of vulnerability theory to improve understanding of vulnerability in the context of AD. By appealing to a more nuanced account of vulnerability, we argue that the current ban on AD in England and Wales is a blunt tool that lacks compassion and fails to recognize the importance of personal autonomy, as well as the relationship between vulnerability and autonomy. Recently, some emerging lawful models of AD purport to better protect the vulnerable via prospective legal authorization. This is also a feature of recent English Assisted Dying bills, with proposals for judicial or quasi-judicial authorization, and so we consider the potential value of prospective legal authorization. Although this approach risks being burdensome for applicants, we suggest that it could, in principle, not only safeguard vulnerable individuals, but also enhance end-of-life autonomy thereby offering support for a restrictive approach to lawful AD.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexandra Mullock & Jonathan Lewis, 2025. "Assisted dying, vulnerability, and the potential value of prospective legal authorization," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(2), pages 1-11..
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:33:y:2025:i:2:p:11.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwaf014
    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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:33:y:2025:i:2:p:11.. 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.