Euthanasia
Appendix A
ANTHONY BLAND CASE:
THE HILLSBOROUGH DISASTER:
Bland was an 18-year-old Liverpool supporter who travelled with two friends to Sheffield
Wednesday's Hillsborough football ground for an FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and
Nottingham Forest on 15 April [Link] the game, a crush behind the Liverpool goal
ensued due to the police losing control of the situation outside the ground. He was injured in
the Hillsborough disaster, named after the football stadium where 95 people died and many
others were injured, as a result of thousands of fans being pushed and crushed against steel
fencing, installed to prevent hooliganism.
Tony Bland suffered crushed ribs and two punctured lungs. This interrupted the supply of
oxygen to his brain which caused catastrophic and irreversible damage, and left him in a
Persistent Vegetative State. He could not see, hear or feel anything.
However the brain stem, which controls the reflexive functions of the body like heartbeat,
breathing and digestion, continued to operate. In the eyes of the medical world and of the law
a person is not clinically dead so long as the brain stem is still functioning.
In order to keep Tony Bland alive in his present condition, he had to be fed with a tube. All
medical opinion agreed that Tony Bland would never recover from his present condition, but
that he would continue to live for many years as long as he was provided with medical
treatment.
The doctors in charge of Tony Bland formed the view, which was supported by his parents,
that no useful purpose was to be served by continuing that medical care. They decided that it
was appropriate to stop the artificial feeding and other measures aimed at prolonging his
existence. In short – there was no benefit to Tony Bland in keeping him alive. Since,
however, there were doubts as to whether this might constitute a criminal offence, the
Airedale NHS Trust, who were responsible for Bland, asked the High Courts of Justice for
advice.
THE SUPREME COURT RULING:
The judges debated the moral and ethical issues raised by the case but in the end they agreed
that given the circumstances: “ It is perfectly reasonable for the responsible doctors to
conclude that there is no affirmative benefit to Anthony Bland in continuing the invasive
medical procedures necessary to sustain his life. Having so concluded, they are neither
entitled nor under a duty to continue such medical care. Therefore they will not be guilty of
murder if they discontinue such care.”[11]
Food and water supply for Tony was stopped and he died on March 3rd 1993 after being in a
persistant vegetative state for about four years.[10]
CONCLUSION:
44
Euthanasia
The Tony Bland case was a landmark ruling as he became the first patient in English legal
history to be allowed to die by the courts through the withdrawal of life-prolonging treatment
including food and water.
45
Euthanasia
46