Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Johnstone v Bloomsbury Health Authority [1992] QB 333; Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789; Tan Te Lam v Superintendent of Tai A Chau Detention Centre [1997] AC 97; Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] AC 669; R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex p Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) [2000] 1 ...
Anthony David Bland (21 September 1970 – 3 March 1993) was a supporter of Liverpool injured in the Hillsborough disaster. He suffered severe brain damage that left him in a persistent vegetative state as a consequence of which the hospital, with the support of his parents, applied for a court order allowing him to " die with dignity ".
A third legal case which resulted from the Hillsborough disaster was Airedale N.H.S. Trust v Bland [1993] A.C. 789, a landmark House of Lords decision in English criminal law, that allowed the life-support machine of Tony Bland, a Hillsborough victim in a persistent vegetative state, to be switched off.
Indeed, Lord Goff ruled in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland that doctors who intentionally do everything necessary and appropriate to relieve a patient’s pain and suffering, even with the foresight of possible terminal consequences, are considered legally protected when a death is hastened. [9]
The Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland case was an English House of Lords decision for a 17-year-old comatose survivor of the Hillsborough disaster. He had been artificially fed and hydrated via life support for about three years, but he had not shown any improvement while in his persistent vegetative state.
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland Main article: Hillsborough disaster Anthony Bland was a 17-year-old Liverpool supporter who had travelled with two friends to Hillsborough Stadium for an FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest on 15 April 1989.
However, in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland, [c 2] cessation of brain stem function, one form of brain death, was considered the definition by the House of Lords. Much medical law – for example, that conferring the right to remove organs for transplant – is predicated on this decision and it is unlikely to be overturned. [ 8 ]
He relied primarily on Airedale NHS Trust v Bland where it was declared acceptable to remove life support. He ruled separation would not be murder but a case of "passive euthanasia" in which food and hydration would be withdrawn. [6]