Guest guest Posted October 7, 2010 Report Share Posted October 7, 2010 Hi guys The medication was intended for pain relief, not to shorten life -correct answer This question highlights ‘the doctrine of double effect’. The defence for Dr argued that the treatment was designed to promote comfort and not shorten life as its primary aim. The fact that the treatment, morphine, did shorten life did not make him guilty of murder but was incidental to providing comfort.SincerelyLyudmylaHuhley From: Lyudmyla Huhley <huhley2006@...>Subject: qs on law Date: Wednesday, 6 October, 2010, 8:09 PM The Bolam principle, based on English Tort law (Bolam vs Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957]) has been used in determining whether acts by a doctor/nurse or other health professional are in accordance with the accepted practice in these largely self-regulating fields. It is based on the case of R vs Bodkin (1957) in which Dr was on trial for murdering a patient who had made him a beneficiary of her will. Dr had prescribed this 80-year-old patient heroin and morphine following a stroke. Despite that this was not the first patient to whom he had been a beneficiary of their estate, the judge found him not guilty. From the following options choose the reason for this? There was insufficient evidence The evidence was tainted The medication was intended for pain relief, not to shorten life The doctor was euthanising a sick patient, which is acceptable under law Not prescribing these medications for her condition would have been negligentSincerelyLyudmylaHuhley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.