Law in Contemporary Society

View   r5  >  r4  ...
ShefaliSinghFirstPaper 5 - 15 May 2012 - Main.DavidHirsch
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="FirstPaper"
Line: 6 to 6
 -- By ShefaliSingh - 16 Feb 2012
Changed:
<
<		Eben, I would like comments one my second draft (this draft) if that is possible. Thank you!
>
>		Eben, I would like comments on my second draft (this draft) if that is possible. Thank you!
 

"Distinguishing Omission from Acts"

My Criminal Law class was recently assigned to read a series of cases in our casebook under the heading “Distinguishing Omissions from Acts.” The section focuses on the ‘difference’ between letting a person die and killing a person, specifically in the context of people receiving life-sustaining treatment. The main case of the section is Barber v. Superior Court, which concerns two physicians who were charged with murder and conspiracy to commit murder after they terminated life supporting measures being administered to a deeply comatose patient (with the approval of the patient’s family). In order to distinguish the act of ‘pulling the plug’ from unlawful killing, the California District Court of Appeal asserted, “the cessation of “heroic” life support measures is not an affirmative act but rather a withdrawal or omission of further treatment.” Barber v. Superior Court, 147 Cal. App. 3d 1006, 1016 (Ct. App. 1983). This was so, the court reasoned, because disconnecting the life support devices was analogous to refraining from giving the patient the life sustaining treatment.

Revision 5r5 - 15 May 2012 - 02:38:10 - DavidHirsch
Revision 4r4 - 14 May 2012 - 17:41:56 - ShefaliSingh
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM