- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R v Bodkin Adams (1957)
Core Principle
A positive act (done for a lawful purpose) that unintentionally hastens death is lawful.
This applies when death is not the intended outcome.
Facts of the Case
Accused: Dr. Bodkin Adams
Victim: Elderly patient who had suffered a stroke.
Key Detail: Dr. Adams was a beneficiary in the victim's will.
Action: Dr. Adams increased the patient's dose of opiate analgesic.
Outcome: The patient died, and Dr. Adams was charged with murder.
Verdict: Not guilty.
Judge's Direction (Devlin J)
When restoring health is no longer possible, a doctor can still:
Relieve pain and suffering.
Take all proper and necessary measures to do so.
These measures are acceptable even if they incidentally shorten life.
Doctrine of Double Effect
Rationale: The Bodkin Adams case hinges on the doctrine of double effect.
Definition: An action with both good and bad effects is permissible if:
The intention is the good effect.
The bad effect is not the means to the good effect.
Status: The doctrine has both support and criticism but is a legally accepted principle.
R v Cox (Clarification by Ogden J)
Using drugs to reduce pain and suffering is often justified, even if it hastens death.
Unlawful Act: Using drugs with the purpose of hastening death.
Montgomery's Conditions (for applying the doctrine)
Condition 1: The patient must be terminally ill.
Condition 2: The drugs given must be considered appropriate treatment by a responsible body of physicians.
Condition 3: The motive must be to relieve suffering, not to shorten life.
Subjective Belief of the Doctor
The key test in a criminal trial is whether the doctor subjectively believed they were acting properly.
Support: See R v Moor (1999) - Arlidge's case comment (2000)
Core Principle
A positive act (done for a lawful purpose) that unintentionally hastens death is lawful.
This applies when death is not the intended outcome.
Facts of the Case
Accused: Dr. Bodkin Adams
Victim: Elderly patient who had suffered a stroke.
Key Detail: Dr. Adams was a beneficiary in the victim's will.
Action: Dr. Adams increased the patient's dose of opiate analgesic.
Outcome: The patient died, and Dr. Adams was charged with murder.
Verdict: Not guilty.
Judge's Direction (Devlin J)
When restoring health is no longer possible, a doctor can still:
Relieve pain and suffering.
Take all proper and necessary measures to do so.
These measures are acceptable even if they incidentally shorten life.
Doctrine of Double Effect
Rationale: The Bodkin Adams case hinges on the doctrine of double effect.
Definition: An action with both good and bad effects is permissible if:
The intention is the good effect.
The bad effect is not the means to the good effect.
Status: The doctrine has both support and criticism but is a legally accepted principle.
R v Cox (Clarification by Ogden J)
Using drugs to reduce pain and suffering is often justified, even if it hastens death.
Unlawful Act: Using drugs with the purpose of hastening death.
Montgomery's Conditions (for applying the doctrine)
Condition 1: The patient must be terminally ill.
Condition 2: The drugs given must be considered appropriate treatment by a responsible body of physicians.
Condition 3: The motive must be to relieve suffering, not to shorten life.
Subjective Belief of the Doctor
The key test in a criminal trial is whether the doctor subjectively believed they were acting properly.
Support: See R v Moor (1999) - Arlidge's case comment (2000)
0 Comments