Medicine Law

Order Description
1.) “In light of the ruling of the Supreme Court in R (on the application of Jane Nicklinson and Paul Lamb) v Ministry of Justice [2014] UKSC 38, assisted dying needs to be legalised in England and Wales.” Discuss

Cases
R v Cox (1992) 12 BMLR 38 (Winchester CC)
R v Inglis [2010] EWCA Crim 2637
Airedale N.H.S. Trust Respondents v. Bland (1993) AC 789 (HL)
Pretty v UK (2002) 35 EHHR 1, paras 7-12, 36-78, 84-90
NHS Trust A v M, NHS Trust B v H [2001] Fam 348
NHS Trust v A (An Adult) [2005] EWCA Civ 1145
B NHS Trust v J [2006] EWHC 315
In Re M (An Adult)
R (on the application of Jane Nicklinson and Paul Lamb) v Ministry of Justice; R (AM) v DPP [2014] UKSC 38, paras 9-11, 57, 60, 132-149, 236-256
Regina (Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions (Society for the Protection of Unborn Children intervening) (HL) [2009] 3 W.L.R. 403, paras.17, 30-56 per Lord Hope, paras 64-69 per Baroness Hale
Textbook
Jackson, pp.892 (middle) to 898 (middle), 909-930
John Keown, Euthanasia, Ethics and Public Policy, (CUP: Cambridge 2002), 37-146
Kate Greasley, ‘R. (Purdy) v DPP and the case for wilful blindness’, (2010) 30 OJLS 301-326

Other sources, Articles and Journals
Michael Freeman, ‘Denying death its dominion: thoughts on the Diane Pretty case’, (2002) 10 Medical Law Review 245-207
J.K. Mason, ‘Unalike as two peas? R (on the application of Purdy) v DPP’, (2009) 13 Edinburgh Law Review 298-302
Jonathan Rogers, ‘Prosecutorial policies, prosecutorial systems, and the Purdy litigation’, (2010) 7 Criminal Law Review 543-564
Crown Prosecution Service, Policy for Prosecutors in Respect of Cases of Encouraging or Assisting Suicide, www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/assisted_suicide_policy.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/25/kay-gilderdale-devoted-mother
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/25/mercy-killing-kay-gilderdale-cleared
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/26/trial-kay-gilderdale-dpp-starmer
Glenys Williams, ‘Assisting Suicide, the Code for Crown Prosecutors and the DPP’s Discretion’, (2010) 39 Common Law World Review 181
Assisted Dying Bill, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2014-2015/0006/15006.pdf
Assisted Dying Bill Explanatory Notes, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2014-2015/0006/en/15006en.pdf
Sabine Michalowski, ‘Relying on common law defences to legalise assisted dying: problems and possibilities’, (2013) 21 Medical Law Review 337-370
Adam Jackson, ‘”Thou shalt not kill; but needst not strive officiously to keep alive”: further clarification of the law regarding mercy killing, euthanasia and assisted suicide’, (2013) 77 Journal of Criminal Law, 468-475
Findlay Stark, ‘Necessity and Nicklinson’, (2013) Criminal Law Review 949

2.) “For no good reason, the law on assisted reproduction and surrogacy is too restrictive to sufficiently protect the interest of potential parents to create a particular type of family in a particular way.” Discuss critically with reference to the relevant statutory and case law.

Cases

R. v. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, ex parte Blood [1999] Fam 151
Evans v UK (Application No.6339/05), Grand Chamber, Decision of 10 April 2007
Elizabeth Warren v Care Fertility (Northampton) Ltd and Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2014] EWHC 602 (Fam)
L v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority & Another [2008] EWHC 2149 (Fam)
Re R (a child) [2003] EWCA Civ 182, [2003] 2 WLR 1485
Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust v A and Others [2003] EWHC 259, [2003] 1 FLR 1091
Re R (a child) [2003] EWCA Civ 182, [2003] 2 WLR 1485
AB v CD [2013] EWHC 1418 (Fam)
AB v CD [2013] EWHC 1418 (Fam)
T v B [2010] EWHC 1444 (Fam)
Re G (A Child) [2013] EWHC 134 (Fam)
In the Matter of D and L (Minors) (Surrogacy) [2012] EWHC 2631 (Fam)
Re PM [2013] EWHC 2328 (Fam)
X and another (Children (Parental Order: Foreign Surrogacy) [2008] EWHC 3030 (Fam)
Re X (A Child) (Surrogacy: Time limit) [2014] EWHC 3135 (Fam)
In re L (A Child) (Parental Order: Foreign Surrogacy) [2010] EWHC 3146 (Fam)
In the Matter of TT (A Minor) [2011] EWHC 33 (Fam)

Textbook
Jackson, pp.788 (middle) to 794 (middle)
Jackson, pp.838 to 855 (middle)

Other sources, Articles, Journals

Morgan, Lee, “In the Name of the Father? Ex parte Blood: Dealing with Novelty and Anomaly” (1997) 60 MLR 840

Morris, ‘Evans v United Kingdom: Paradigms of parenting’, (2007) 70 MLR 992

Sheldon, ‘Fragmenting fatherhood: the regulation of reproductive technologies’, (2005) 68 MLR 523
Julie Wallbank, Chris Dietz, ‘Lesbian mothers, fathers and other animals: is the political personal in multiple parent families’, (2013) 25 Child and Family Law Quarterly 451-470
Leanne Smith, ‘Tangling the web of legal parenthood: legal responses to the use of known donors in lesbian parenting arrangements’, (2013) 33 Legal Studies 355-381
Quintavalle (Comment on Reproductive Ethics) v HFEA [2005] UKHL 28
Jackson, pp.810 (middle) to 829 (top)
Sheldon, Wilkinson, ‘Hashmi and Whitaker: an unjustifiable and misguided distinction?’ (2004) 12 Medical Law Review 137
Pattinson, Medical Law and Ethics (Sweet & Maxwell: 2nd ed. London 2009, pp.290 (middle) to 297 (middle)
Stephen Wilkinson, ‘Sexism, sex selection and “family balancing”’, (2008) 16 Medical Law Review 369-389
Timothy Mark Krahn, ‘Regulating preimplantation genetic diagnosis: the case of Down’s syndrome’, (2011) 19 Medical Law Review 157-191
Wallbank, ‘Too many mothers? Surrogacy, kinship and the welfare of the child’, (2002) 10 Medical Law Review 271-294
Freeman, ‘Does surrogacy have a future after Brazier?’ (1999) 7 Medical Law Review 1-20
Kirsty Horsey, Sally Sheldon, ‘Still hazy after all these years: the law regulating surrogacy’ (2012) 20 Medical Law Review 67-89

Order a unique copy of this paper
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency

Order your essay today and save 7% with the discount code DISSERT7