- Page 1:
ReportBIOETHICS:AD
- Page 4 and 5:
LAW REFORM COMMISSION‘S ROLEThe L
- Page 6 and 7:
LAW REFORM RESEARCH STAFFDirector o
- Page 8 and 9:
CONTACT DETAILSFurther information
- Page 10 and 11:
TABLE OF CONTENTSTable of Legislati
- Page 12 and 13:
CHAPTER 4CONSEQUENCES OF ESTABLISHI
- Page 15:
TABLE OF CASESAiredale NHS Trust v
- Page 19 and 20:
advance care directives in the Unit
- Page 22 and 23:
CHAPTER 1ORIGINS OF ADVANCE CARE DI
- Page 24 and 25:
1.08 The second major development i
- Page 26 and 27:
Refusal of treatments by pregnant w
- Page 28 and 29:
we believe Karen‘s choice, if she
- Page 30 and 31:
1995 English Law Commission <strong
- Page 32 and 33:
a declaration that it would be lawf
- Page 34 and 35:
Disabilities. 42 The draft Recommen
- Page 36 and 37:
(5) The development of advance care
- Page 38 and 39:
1.45 In the Supreme Court, Hamilton
- Page 40 and 41:
when determining the capacity quest
- Page 42 and 43:
(d)Current use of advance care dire
- Page 44 and 45:
e upheld. Indeed, this conclusion f
- Page 46 and 47:
services, the need for palliative c
- Page 48 and 49:
ecommendations in this Repo
- Page 50 and 51:
efusal of medical treatment, subjec
- Page 52 and 53:
consents to or refuses medical trea
- Page 54 and 55:
(2) Autonomy, dignity and privacy(a
- Page 56 and 57:
(3) Presumption in favour of preser
- Page 58 and 59:
2CHAPTER 2ADVANCE CARE DIRECTIVES,
- Page 60 and 61:
2.07 The Commission recommends that
- Page 62 and 63:
2.12 The Council of Europe‘s 2009
- Page 64 and 65:
donor understands the effect of mak
- Page 66 and 67:
should be referred to the High Cour
- Page 68:
2.30 Another protection of importan
- Page 71 and 72: dentist 3psychologist 4social care
- Page 73 and 74: should be defined to include, but i
- Page 75 and 76: chemotherapy or dialysis, antibioti
- Page 77 and 78: Similarly, Power argues that there
- Page 79 and 80: assist either health care professio
- Page 81 and 82: approach met with broad approval an
- Page 83 and 84: Practice on Advance Care Directives
- Page 85 and 86: 3.48 The Commission recommends that
- Page 87 and 88: (other than charges and directions
- Page 89 and 90: 3.64 The Commission concurs with th
- Page 91 and 92: advance care directive involves a r
- Page 93 and 94: eyond question that a court or a do
- Page 95 and 96: close relationship that can exist b
- Page 97 and 98: 3.86 The Commission recommends that
- Page 99 and 100: care directive. 105 The Commission
- Page 101 and 102: the wishes or making their own deci
- Page 103 and 104: sustaining treatment or whether the
- Page 105 and 106: (b) for the guidance of persons, in
- Page 107 and 108: omission.‖ 5 The Supreme Court in
- Page 109 and 110: who acted in good faith could be pr
- Page 111 and 112: or health professional cannot, for
- Page 113 and 114: follow an advance care directive is
- Page 115 and 116: the Board can erase the name of a n
- Page 117 and 118: 5.07 The Commission recommends that
- Page 119 and 120: directive would be likely to be enf
- Page 121: Ensuring that the wishes of the mak
- Page 125 and 126: _______________________________DRAF
- Page 127 and 128: _______________________________DRAF
- Page 129 and 130: Purpose and guiding principles3.
- Page 131 and 132: (a) the person who made the advance
- Page 133 and 134: witnessed. Subsection (5) implement
- Page 135 and 136: (2) Without prejudice to the genera
- Page 137 and 138: Civil and criminal liability9.— (
- Page 139 and 140: Explanatory NoteSubsections (1) to
- Page 141: The Law Reform Commission is an ind