- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R v Cambridge Area Health Authority ex p B (1995): Study Guide
This case concerns the refusal of further medical treatment (a second bone marrow transplant) for a 10-year-old girl (B) suffering from leukaemia. The key issue is whether the Health Authority's decision violated B's right to life.
I. Facts:
This case concerns the refusal of further medical treatment (a second bone marrow transplant) for a 10-year-old girl (B) suffering from leukaemia. The key issue is whether the Health Authority's decision violated B's right to life.
I. Facts:
- Applicant: 10-year-old girl (B) with leukaemia, facing almost certain death without further treatment.
- Treatment: A second bone marrow transplant with a low (10-20%) chance of success.
- Decision: The Cambridge Area Health Authority refused further treatment.
- Legal Action: B's father, acting as her next friend, sought certiorari (a judicial review) to quash the Authority's decision.
- Finding: The court found the Authority's decision unlawful.
- Reasoning:
- Failure to consider relevant factors: The Authority failed to adequately consider the father's wishes. Critically, this failure directly impacted on the decision's legality, a point not adequately addressed by the subsequent appellate decision.
- Violation of the right to life: The decision interfered with B's right to life, a fundamental human right that's not merely an international obligation (under the European Convention) but is intrinsic to English common law. Any infringement requires substantial public interest justification, which the Authority failed to provide. The Authority didn't adequately explain its prioritization that resulted in denying B a chance at life.
- Remedy: Granted certiorari, remitting the decision back to the Authority.
- Finding: The Court of Appeal overturned the Divisional Court's decision, holding the Authority's decision was lawful.
- Reasoning: The Court of Appeal did not address the Divisional Court's reasoning regarding the right to life or the failure to consider the father's wishes. This omission is significant.
- Subsequent Events: An anonymous donor subsequently funded the treatment, but B died.
- Significance: The case highlights the conflict between resource allocation in healthcare and individual rights, particularly the right to life. The appellate court's lack of engagement with the lower court's reasoning leaves open the question of the exact legal basis for the final decision. The divergence in the decisions of the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal demonstrates a lack of consistency in how the courts have considered the intersection of healthcare decisions and human rights.
- Certiorari: Understand its function in judicial review. What grounds are necessary to seek certiorari?
- Right to life: Explore its status under English common law and its relationship to international human rights instruments. How does this right balance with competing public interests (e.g., resource allocation)?
- Judicial Review: Analyze the different standards of review applied at the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal. Why did the Courts reach different conclusions? What are the implications of the Court of Appeal's lack of engagement with the reasoning of the lower court?
- Parental Rights: What is the role of parental wishes in healthcare decisions for children? When can these wishes be overridden?
- Resource Allocation in Healthcare: How should limited healthcare resources be allocated? What ethical and legal considerations are involved?
0 Comments