Focus death and dying essay questions

Final instructions for the essay
Focus death and dying

Research question: Medical and Legal Paternalism in the making of medical treatment decisions helpful or invasive? Please pick 1 helpful or invasive
Paternalism also means best interest
Pls remember that this is a legal paper that has a medical component to it

Body
To do this paper the following need to be considered. But what is most important is the high level of critical analysis needed(your own word and understanding; do you agree with a particular judgment or do you agree or not with how the author explained his position). Remember having a counter argument also strengthens the critical analysis.

Incapacitated Adults
Is medical paternalism helpful or invasive in the withdrawal of treatment for adults
Statue
Mental capacity act 2005
Key cases
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland.
RE T
NHS v Y
And any other case you find
Pls for cases, DO NOT state the facts. It should be used to bolster your critical analysis
Instead focus on
Issue: What is the relevant legal issue in the decision (the legal question that the court is being asked to resolve)?
Ruling: What is the ruling that the court made on that issue? You should be able to give a brief synopsis of the ruling.
Analysis: On what reasoning and arguments did the court base its ruling? What reasoning and arguments did the court reject?
Your Critical Analysis: What is your critique of the decision? You should critically discuss not only the ruling made by the court, but consider the reasoning and arguments relied upon the court. You may also wish to consider the reasoning and arguments that the court rejected. You may, for instance, think that the court came to the right decision for the wrong reasons, the wrong decision for the wrong reasons, the right decision for the right reasons, or agree in part and disagree in part with a judgement and the reasoning and arguments behind it.
Ill post the Manchester academic phrasebank to help you with the critical analysis
Journals to get you started
Demands and requests for inappropriate orinadvisable treatments at the end of life: what do you do at 2 oclock in the morning when …
Selecting Treatment Options and Choosing Between them: Delineating Patient and Professional Autonomy in Shared DecisionMakin
Deciding Together? Best Interests and Shared Decision-Making in Paediatric Intensive Care
Awake AND (ONLY JUST)AWARE? A TYPOLOGY, TAXONOMY, AND HOLISTICFRAMEWORK, FOR WITHDRAWING CLINICALLYASSISTED NUTRITION AND HYDRATION IN THE MINIMALLYCONSCIOUS STATE( see if there is anything here if not dont use it)
Judicial oversight of life-ending withdrawal of assisted nutrition and hydration in disorders of consciousness in the United Kingdom: A matter of life and death
SEEKING CERTAINTY? JUDICIAL APPROACHES TO THE
(NON-)TREATMENT OF MINIMALLY CONSCIOUS PATIENTS
When Sanctity of Life and Self-Determination clash: Briggs versus Briggs [2016] EWCOP 53 implications for policy and practice
Dying too soon or living too long? Withdrawing treatment from patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness after Re Y
Should people in the minimally conscious state have a (recognised) right to reassessment
End-of-life Decisions for Patients with Prolonged Disorders of Consciousness in England and Wales: Time for Neuroscience-informed Improvements
Pls also look for other sources. The more sources we have the better and richer the critical analysis would be.

Somethings to consider
The use of the balance sheet approach
Who is better suited to make decisions to make on behalf of the incapacitated patients on behalf of the incapacitated adult
How has the law, courts, and physicians gone about determining what is in the best interest of an incapacitated adult. Remember critical analysis key to successful argument
Look at the hand-off approach used by the courts
Are there any safeguard that could be introduced and whether this undermines the principle of autonomy
Potential counter argument
Sanctity of life
And any other you find
Pls remember that you dont have to incorporate all this pointers, they are just things to consider whilst doing research what is most important is have a section filled with critical analysis backed with evidence on the issue on medical and LEGAL paternalism as it relates to the withdrawal of treatments for incapacitated adult

Incapacitated children
Is medical paternalism helpful or invasive in the withdrawal of treatment for children?
Key statue
Children act 1989
Cases
TAFIDA RAQEEB v BARTS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
HOLLIE DANCE and PAUL BATTERSBEE v BARTS HEALTH NHS TRUST
GOSH v Yates and Gard [2017] EWHC 1909
Re King (A Child) [2014] EWHC 2964 (Fam)
Yates & Anor v Great Ormond Street Hospital For Children NHS Foundation Trust & Anor [2017]
Alta Fixsler
Pls for cases, DO NOT state the facts. It should be used to bolster your critical analysis
Instead focus on
Issue: What is the relevant legal issue in the decision (the legal question that the court is being asked to resolve)?
Ruling: What is the ruling that the court made on that issue? You should be able to give a brief synopsis of the ruling.
Analysis: On what reasoning and arguments did the court base its ruling? What reasoning and arguments did the court reject?
Your Critical Analysis: What is your critique of the decision? You should critically discuss not only the ruling made by the court, but consider the reasoning and arguments relied upon the court. You may also wish to consider the reasoning and arguments that the court rejected. You may, for instance, think that the court came to the right decision for the wrong reasons, the wrong decision for the wrong reasons, the right decision for the right reasons, or agree in part and disagree in part with a judgement and the reasoning and arguments behind it.
Journal articles
Alta Fixsler: Medico-legal Paternalism in UK Paediatric Best Interest Decision
PARENTAL RIGHTS, BEST INTERESTS AND SIGNIFICANT HARMS: WHO SHOULD HAVE THE FINAL SAY OVER A CHILDS MEDICAL CARE?
Charlie Gard: In defence of the law
Raqeeb, Haastrup, and Evans: Seeking Consistency through a
to Limitation of Treatment in the
Context of Dispute
Harm is all you need? Best interests and disputes about parental decision-making
Making Decisions for Children Accommodating Parental Choice in
Best Interests Determinations: Barts Health NHS Trust v Raqeeb [2019]
EWHC 2530 (Fam); Raqeeb and Barts Health NHS Trust [2019] EWHC 2531(Admin
RECONSIDERING WRONGFUL LIFE IN ENGLAND AFTER THIRTY YEARS: LEGISLATIVEMISTAKES AND UNJUSTIFIABLE ANOMALIES
Please find a lot more articles. The more resource we have the better

Somethings to consider
Why has the court been inconsistent in the application of best interest test and also why did the courts take a cautious approach in determining what is in the best interest of their child
Who is better suited to make decisions as to the best interest of the incapacitated child or the child that is brain dead; the courts, the physicians, or their parents?
Look at inherent jurisdiction.
Look at significant harm
Look at safeguard and whether this undermines the principle of autonomy
Potential counter argument
– Sanctity of life
– And any other you find

Introduction and conclusion
Pls ensure that your introduction is extremely strong and concludes with the research question, what you are arguing( ie is paternalism as it relates to withdrawal of treatment helpful or invasive) and a road map( pls look at the sample essay on how I like my writing done and follow suit particularly how I like my roadmap constructed)
Conclusion also need to be very strong and a brief summary of the paper

Essay could be grounded under one of the following depending on where research takes you( please let me know which one you pick before proceeding):
Consequentialism: outcome (consequences) determines if something is right or wrong. The end justifies the means.
Deontology: inherent right or wrong regardless of consequence or outcome. Does not take the outcome into consideration when determining right or wrong.
Principlism: approach widely used within current medical practice
Autonomy: respect for patients wishes and views. On its own, this seems to have become the predominant ethical principle used in both medicine and law.
Non-maleficence: cause no harm. See Hippocratic oath.
Beneficence: to do good for the patient. See Hippocratic oath. But does this principle also lead to paternalism?
Justice: is medical treatment fair and equal? Access to health care? Rationing of health care services? Think about: post code lottery.
Ethics of Care: does not have a single agreed-upon formula but generally is seen as focusing on morality in care and providing a different point of view than the other ethical approaches.

Things to remember
This is a legal paper with a medical component not a health paper so its important to discuss the law and include cases in your critical analysis
The introduction and conclusion has to be extremely strong
Pointers are there to get you thinking and all must not be addressed
CRITICAL ANALYSIS( YOUR VIEW ON A CASE OR AN ARTICLE AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU AGREE WITH IT IS IMPORTANT. Your critical analysis could range from a sentence to a paragraph). Look at the sample essays provided
Every point stated must have evidence and MUST be referenced
Make use of the peel guidelines if introducing a new point
Remember critical analysis( your discussion very important)
Let me know if you need one or two more pages
Make use of the academic phrasebank a lot which I will post. My lecturers love it. Look at the sample essays provided.
Pls ensure its done properly as I really do not to send it bk to be redone.
No reference page all footnotes
Please ensure that all article use , I can access it. Ie use sources with full articles
Remember focus is on the withdrawal of treatment, paternalism, best interest, adult and child
A more complete essay will analze this topic for each individuals ( adult and children) from the legal and medical standpoint. Both should go together in the analysis.
The Discourse of Dignity in the Charlie Gard, Alfie Evans and Isaiah Haastrup Cases