Thu Sep 7, 2023 – 11:54 am EDT
OXFORD, England (LifeSiteNews)— The case of ST versus the NHS Trust seeking to end her life has sparked criticism of the ethics underpinning the judge’s ruling in favor of the latter.
In remarks published on September 5, a leading British bioethicist describes Justice Roberts’ ruling as an example of “lethal paternalism”.
According to Professor David Albert Jones, director of the UK-based Anscombe Bioethics Centre, “The judge has taken a perilous step in interpreting ST’s disagreement with her doctors as tantamount to an inability to use the information she has been given about her condition.”
“She can use it. She just disagrees with it,” Jones argued.
Jones believes that the case hinges, not on ST’s mental capacity, but on the right to disagree with the power of the law and medical professionals to silence her voice and end her life.
“In this case, a vulnerable patient’s disagreement with her doctors is being used against her as a means not only to take away her voice but further to deny her the right to litigate against the decision to take away her voice,” he stated.
“Most disturbingly of all, her
The remainder of this article is available in its entirety at LifeSite News
The views expressed in this news alert by the author do not directly represent that of The Official Street Preachers or its editors
