Access to this article is restricted until 24 months after publication by request of the publisher. Restriction lift date: 2026-02-08
Puzzles of the Liminal Dead: St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Casey
Loading...
Files
Date
2024-02-08
Authors
Donnelly, Mary
Lyons, Barry
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Published Version
Abstract
St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Casey is the latest in a growing line of cases before the UK courts concerning objections to the determination of brain stem death (BD). The case is distinguishable from most of the earlier jurisprudence because it concerned an adult and, in this respect, it provides helpful clarity regarding the procedural framework to be applied in such situations. However, as we will see below, in other respects the case serves to increase confusion. One particular problem that arises from the judgment in Casey is how we conceptualise the legal status of an individual who has been found to be brain dead by clinicians, but this finding is disputed by families, either in respect of procedure or substance, and the courts have been asked to rule on the matter. The case also raises new questions about the operationalization of testing for BD, which questions assume particular significance given the ongoing work to revise the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges’ Code of Practice for the Diagnosis and Confirmation of Death (2008) (hereafter ‘the Code’). This commentary will explore both of these aspects of the case. First, however, we outline the facts and identify those areas in which the legal position has been clarified.
Description
Keywords
St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Casey , Brain stem death (BD) , Academy of Medical Royal Colleges’ Code of Practice for the Diagnosis and Confirmation of Death (2008)
Citation
Donnelly, M. and Lyons, B. (2024) 'Puzzles of the Liminal Dead: St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Casey', Medical Law Review, 32(1), pp. 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwae001
Link to publisher’s version
Collections
Copyright
© 2024, the Authors. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced version of an article accepted for publication in Medical Law Review following peer review. The version of record Medical Law Review, 32(1), pp. 111–119] is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwae001