This essay examines from both moral and legal perspectives, the different legal positions between the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment and the right to receive active assistance to die. In English law, an adult with capacity has the absolute right to refuse life-sustaining treatment but cannot legally receive active assistance to die, via either physician assisted-suicide or euthanasia.   Case law and scholars have put forward legal and ethical principles to support the existing law, including the difference between acts and omissions, the doctrine of double effect, the principle of autonomy, the sanctity of life and the argument of slippery slope. Exploring those principles, this essay shows that the distinction between a right to refuse life-sustaining treatment and a right to receive active assistance to die lacks a moral force, and there is no satisfying justification for the blanket pan imposed.  This essay concludes that the current law is inconsistent. Instead of imposing a blanket ban on addicted dying, cases should be examined on an individual basis.

Mengruo Huang. A Study of Assisted Dying under English Law—Based on Moral and Legal Perspectives. The Frontiers of Society, Science and Technology (2023) Vol. 5, Issue 10: 26-31. https://doi.org/10.25236/FSST.2023.051005.

[1] Wicks, E. (2001). The right to refuse medical treatment under the European Convention on Human Rights. Med. L. Rev., 9, 17.

[2] Richard A Epstein,(2000) Mortal Peril: Our Inalienable Right to Health Care? (1st edn, Perseus). 

[3] Airedale, N. H. S. (1996). Trust v Bland [1993] 1 All ER 821. London, UK: House of Lords.

[4]  Steinbock, B., & Norcross, A. (Eds.). (1994). Killing and letting die. Fordham Univ Press.

[5] Glover, J. (1990). Causing death and saving lives: The moral problems of abortion, infanticide, suicide, euthanasia, capital punishment, war and other life-or-death choices. Penguin UK. 

[6] McLean, S. A. (Ed.). (2016). First do no harm: law, ethics and healthcare. Routledge.

[7] Jonathan Glover, (1990) Causing Death and Saving Lives: The Moral Problems of Abortion, Infanticide, Suicide, Euthanasia, Capital Punishment, War and Other Life-or-death Choices (Penguin). 

[8] Hart, H. L. A., & Honoré, T. (1985). Causation in the Law. OUP Oxford. 

[9] Jackson, E. (2004). Whose Death is it Anyway?: Euthanasia and the Medical Profession. Current legal problems, 57(1), 415.

[10] Goff, L. (1987). The mental element in the crime of murder. Israel Law Review, 22(1), 1-36.

[11] Keown, J. (2018). Euthanasia, ethics and public policy: an argument against legalisation. Cambridge University Press.

[12] Emily Jackson, (2004) ‘Whose Death is it Anyway? Euthanasia and the Medical Profession’ 57 Current Law Problems 415, 416.

[13] LAURIE, G. H., & Dove, E. (2019). Mason and McCall Smith's law and medical ethics. Oxford University Press.

[14] George, R. P. (1995). Making men moral: civil liberties and public morality. Clarendon Press.

[15] Keown, J., & Gormally, L. (1999). Human dignity, autonomy and mentally-incapacitated patients: A critique of who decides. Web Journal of Current Legal Issues, 4.

[16] Dickenson, D., Johnson, M., Johnson, M. L., Katz, J. S., & Katz, J. (Eds.). (2000). Death, dying and bereavement. Sage.

[17] Biggs, H. (2003). A Pretty Fine Line: Life, Death, Autonomy and Letting It B: R.(on the Application of Pretty) v. DPP [2001] EWHC Admin. 788;[2002] 1 All ER 1;[2002] 1 FLR 268, re B (Adult: Refusal of Medical Treatment)[2002] 2 All ER 449. Feminist L. Stud., 11, 291.

[18] Glick, H. R. (1992). The right to die: Policy innovation and its consequences. Columbia University Press.

[19] Smith, S. W. (2005). Evidence for the practical slippery slope in the debate on physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. Med. L. Rev., 13, 17.

[20] Griffiths, J., Bood, A., & Weyers, H. (1998). Euthanasia and law in the Netherlands (p. 382). Amsterdam University Press..

[21] Orentlicher, D. (1998). The alleged distinction between euthanasia and the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment: conceptually incoherent and impossible to maintain. U. Ill. L. Rev., 837.