Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789

Court: House of Lords

Facts: Bland was in a persistent vegetative state, and doctors sought to withdraw life-sustaining treatment with the family's consent.

Issue: Is the removal of life support, which leads to the death of a patient in a persistent vegetative state, lawful, or does it amount to murder?

Held: The court held that the withdrawal of treatment was lawful as it was an omission rather than an act of killing. The court reasoned that the actus reus of actively causing death was not present in the withdrawal of life support.

Key Judicial Statement: Lord Goff noted, "It is in the patient's best interests that medical treatment should be withheld or withdrawn in order to allow him to die peacefully and with dignity."

💡Levelup : The judgment is based on a fine distinction between acts and omissions, which is legally significant but ethically contentious.