The DPP's interim guidance on assisted suicide prosecutions leaves many questions unanswered, says Penney Lewis Despite the publicity surrounding it, assisted suicide remains rare in the United Kingdom. Anonymous surveys of doctors suggest that it is non-existent, although voluntary euthanasia is carried out by doctors in a very small fraction of cases. There are cases of assistance by non-professionals, resulting in a small number of prosecutions for assisted suicide – 16 since April 2005, according to the DPP.
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence proposes to reject a breast cancer drug despite its own rule changes on end-of-life treatments Wednesday 21 October 2009 18.11 BST A drug which can give women with advanced breast cancer extra weeks or months of life has been turned down by a government watchdog body for use in the NHS. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) says it proposes to reject Tyverb (lapatinib) in spite of changes in the rules brought in specifically to allow people at the end of their lives to have the chance of new and often expensive treatments. Tyverb is the only drug licensed for women with advanced breast cancer whose tumours test positive for a protein called HER2 and for whom Herceptin, a Nice-approved drug, is no longer working. In much of the rest of Europe, Tyverb is then given, in combination with a standard chemotherapy drug called capecitabine.
A national survey of 3733 UK doctors reporting on the care of 2923 people who had died under their care is reported here. Results show that there was no time to make an ‘end-of-life decision’ (deciding to provide, withdraw or withhold treatment) for 8.5% of those reporting deaths. A further 55.2% reported decisions which they estimated would not hasten death and 28.9% reported decisions they had expected to hasten death. A further 7.4% reported deaths where they had to some degree intended to hasten death. Where patients or someone else had made a request for a hastened death, doctors were more likely to report expecting or at least partly intending to hasten death. Doctors usually made these decisions in consultation with colleagues, relatives and, where feasible, with patients.
Around a third of doctors say they have given drugs to terminally ill patients or withdrawn treatment, knowing or intending that it would shorten their life. A study of doctors in charge of the last hours of almost 3,000 people finds decisions almost always have to be made on whether to give drugs to relieve pain that could shorten life and whether to continue resuscitation and artificial feeding. In 211 cases (7.4%), doctors say they gave drugs or stopped treatment to speed the patient's death. In 825 cases (28.9%), doctors made a decision on treatment that they knew would probably or certainly hasten death. One in 10 patients asked their doctor to help them die faster. What doctors do varies according to their religious beliefs, according to Prof Clive Seale, who carried out the research. But, he said, there was no evidence of a "slippery slope": that deaths of the most vulnerable, such as very elderly women and those with dementia, are being hastened more than others.
A father is fighting a hospital's attempt to withdraw support keeping his baby son alive. The one-year-old, known as Baby RB for legal reasons, was born with a rare, genetic muscle condition that makes it hard for him to breathe independently. His parents are going to the High Court - the mother is reportedly supporting the hospital's bid. The father's lawyers argue that the boy's brain is unaffected, meaning he can see, hear, interact and play. Despite having to remain in hospital and being dependent on a ventilator to breathe, he enjoys having stories read to him and listening to music, they say. The lawyers are submitting video footage to the court, which they say shows him playing with his toys. But the hospital says that Baby RB's quality of life is so low that it would not be in his best interests to try to save him. Baby RB was born with congenital myasthenic syndrome and has been in hospital since birth.
A father whose son was born with a rare neuromuscular condition will go to the high court tomorrow in an attempt to stop a hospital withdrawing the support that keeps the child alive. Doctors treating the one-year-old say the boy's quality of life is so poor that it would not be in his best interests to save him. They are reportedly being supported in their action by the baby's mother, who is separated from his father. The child, known for legal reasons as Baby RB, was born with congenital myasthenic syndrome (CMS), a muscle condition that severely limits movement and the ability to breathe independently. He has been in hospital since birth. If the hospital succeeds in its application, it will be the first time a British court has gone against the wishes of a parent and ruled that life support can be discontinued or withdrawn from a child who does not have brain damage.
A one-year-old boy at the centre of a "right-to-life" legal dispute would not benefit from an operation to help him breathe, the High Court has been told. The child, known as Baby RB, has a rare, genetic condition that makes it hard for him to breathe independently. But a leading paediatrician, known as Dr F, said he was "not a candidate" for surgery to try to open up his airway. Baby RB's father is fighting a hospital's attempt - backed by the mother - to withdraw his life support.
A doctor has agreed a baby in a "right-to-life" legal row may be able to interact - but any mental development would only make his fate more tragic. The paediatric neurologist told the High Court the severely disabled child, Baby RB, would remain in a "no chance" situation even if he developed further. He questioned the life the boy would lead if he was capable of cognitive function but physically so disabled.
A doctor has said that a baby in a "right-to-life" legal row has the potential to communicate and even operate a wheelchair in years to come. The paediatric neurologist, Professor Fenella Kirkham, told the High Court that Baby RB had the normal intelligence of a one-year-old. She said he was likely to develop language recognition skills and he may be better off at home. The boy's father is fighting an attempt by the hospital to end life support.
Hospital patients in England will get the legal right to be seen privately if they face NHS delays. Hospitals have to start treating patients within 18 weeks of referral - or two weeks in the case of cancer. But ministers will now give patients a legal right to private care - or treatment at another NHS centre if so desired - if this does not happen. The Tories, who would scrap waiting time targets, said it was an "unaffordable and uncosted" pledge.
A father who had been fighting to stop a hospital withdrawing life support from his seriously ill son has dropped his objections. The one-year-old, known as Baby RB for legal reasons, was born with a rare, genetic muscle condition that makes it hard for him to breathe independently. The hospital was backed by the baby's mother. But the move had been strongly opposed by the child's father at a High Court hearing. However, the father changed his mind after hearing medical evidence which suggested it would be in the best interests of the child if medical support was withdrawn. Lawyers for the health authority caring for the baby in intensive care told Mr Justice McFarlane: "All of the parties in court now agree that it would be in RB's best interests for the course suggested by the doctors to be followed."
A father who went to the High Court to try to stop a hospital turning off his seriously ill baby son's life support machine has dropped his objections to the move. The outcome has prompted a mixture of sadness and relief. For six days they had sat in the bland surroundings of Court 50 at London's High Court listening to others talking about their baby son's quality of life. A host of paediatricians, nurses, and experts went into the witness box. Many of them urged a judge to decide that this profoundly disabled 13-month-old boy should be allowed to die. It was, they said, no longer in his best interests to keep him alive.
A Parental Order transfers parenthood from the surrogate (and her husband or partner if she has one) to the couple who commission the surrogacy arrangement. Parental Orders are currently available to married couples only. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 enables same sex couples and unmarried couples as well as married couples to apply for a Parental Order. Regulations are necessary to set out the processes for the court to grant Parental Orders. This consultation is on the Draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Parental Orders) Regulations. They replace the Parental Orders (Human Fertilisation and Embryology) Regulations 1994 and the Parental Orders (Human Fertilisation and Embryology) (Scotland) Regulations 1994. They will bring the processes for granting Parental Orders more closely into line with updated adoption legislation.
A parental order is made by the family courts and reassigns parenthood after surrogacy, extinguishing the responsibility of the surrogate parents and transferring it to the commissioning couple. The process takes place post-birth: the application must be made within the first six months of the child's life (though the surrogate's consent is ineffective until after the first six weeks) and typically takes many months to be processed by the courts. At present, only married couples can apply, but as from 6 April 2010, unmarried and same sex couples will also be eligible. The Department of Health (DH) is currently consulting on new draft regulations which prescribe the detail of this court process, and which will replace existing regulations that have been in place since 1994. The consultation closes on 23 November.
The Labour party is urging the Scottish parliament to take action to standardise IVF provision across Scotland, after Labour MSP Jackie Baillie discovered wide disparities in provision between the 11 Scottish NHS boards. Ms Baillie contacted all of the boards after having been approached by a constituent who was upset about the length of IVF waiting lists where they lived.
A serious blunder at one of Britain's top fertility clinics dramatically increased the risk its patients would suffer a miscarriage or give birth to a child with serious health problems, sparking fresh fears about how IVF centres are run in the wake of a series of scandals. Unscreened sperm used by staff at the London Women's Clinic (LWC) to create dozens of embryos was later found to have a chromosome abnormality that could have been passed on to any unborn child, The Independent on Sunday has learnt. The British Fertility Society's screening guidelines make it clear that the clinic should never have accepted the donor. At least one couple suffered a miscarriage as a direct result.
J. Dave. (2023)In this blog, we try to guide you regarding the current trending online marketing tools used in general by businesses for improving their online sales..