Reviews
| Published date | 01 September 2002 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.t01-1-00410 |
| Date | 01 September 2002 |
REVIEWS
Hazel Biggs,Euthanasia, Death with Dignity and the Law, Oxford and Portland,
OR: Hart Publishing, 2001, xvi + 187 pp, hb £25.00.
Euthanasia and related end-of-life issues have become a major decisive force in
modern societies. Disputes arise about whether euthanasia should be legalised;
whether a decision to commit suicide while suffering a terminal illness can ever be a
free and rational choice; and whether the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia will
lead societies down a slippery slope into involuntary euthanasia. Different
perspectives are available to assess these disputes: theoretical, legal, ethical and
empirical perspectives, among others. One of the latest forays into the euthanasia
debate, Hazel Biggs’ Euthanasia, Death with Dignity and the Law, ‘seeks to analyse
the issues from the perspectives of law, medicine and ethics to consider whether legal
reform is necessary to enable people to die with dignity’ (p 1).
Biggs sets an ambitious task for herself, especially because she does not focus
solely on euthanasia. Instead, she has decided to address the issue within a larger
medico-legal context. This makes it necessary to discuss not only euthanasia,
physician-assisted suicide and mercy killing, but also consent, living wills and the
philosophical questions of autonomy and dignity. Biggs analyses these issues by
breaking them up into six distinct chapters ‘designed to build upon one another’ (p 6),
but still capable of standing alone.
She presents primarily the UK view of the law, although there is some discussion
of other jurisdictions. She is clearly at her best when examining UK law, as there are
some mistakes involved in her discussion about US law. For example, she states that
the US Supreme Court cases, Washington vGlucksberg and Vacco vQuill
‘concerned whether or not New York State’s ban on assisted suicide amounted to a
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause’ (p 14). While she
has correctly characterised Vacco vQuill,Washington vGlucksberg involved the
state of Washington and focused primarily on a claim of substantive due process
under the Fourteenth Amendment. Surprisingly, furthermore, she has little to say
about the Dutch experience, even though no current literature on euthanasia can
avoid it entirely. Her examination of UK cases, however, is thorough and provides a
good background for her readers.
Using case law, Biggs argues that the law is currently inconsistent. As she shows,
‘it is inconsistent to permit terminal decisions to be made about people who cannot
speak for themselves or make a considered choice, while those who actively and
competently seek medical assistance for a permanent resolution are prohibited from
so doing’ (p 7). Additionally, she argues that the refusal to allow euthanasia does not
fit within the larger scheme of patient choice.
If this survey of case law examining euthanasia within the parameters of current
law was her only goal, it would be successful. However, Biggs also wants to provide
us with a view of how the law should be and this is where her book becomes
problematic. In order to present a view of where the law should go, Biggs discusses
the philosophical concepts of autonomy and dignity, both of which are integral to the
disputes over euthanasia. Unfortunately, like many other authors on the subject, she
does not provide adequate definitions of those terms. She informs us that ‘personal
ßThe Modern Law Review Limited 2002 (MLR 65:5, September). Published by Blackwell Publishers,
108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. 803
To continue reading
Request your trial