Health Care Analysis

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 59–72 | Cite as

Advance Directives in English and French Law: Different Concepts, Different Values, Different Societies

Original Article

Abstract

In Western societies advance directives are widely recognised as important means to extend patient self-determination under circumstances of incapacity. Following other countries, England and France have adopted legislation aiming to clarify the legal status of advance directives. In this paper, I will explore similarities and differences in both sets of legislation, the arguments employed in the respective debates and the socio-political structures on which these differences are based. The comparison highlights how different legislations express different concepts emphasising different values accorded to the duty to respect autonomy and to protect life, and how these differences are informed by different socio-political contexts. Furthermore each country associates different ethical concerns with ADs which raise doubts about whether these directives are a theoretical idea which is hardly applicable in practice.

Keywords

Advance directives Autonomy Welfare Solidarity Responsibility England France 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper forms part of wider research comparing policies, implementations and attitudes towards advance directives in England and France funded by an EU grant for the FP7 project, “Advance decision-making: Advance directives and proxy decision-making in France and in England” (ADVANCED - FP7-PEOPLE-2009-IEF-254825). An earlier version of the paper was presented at a workshop supported by the Institute for Advanced Studies and organised by the Centre for Ethics in Medicine, University of Bristol, “LEAP—Advance decision-making at the end-of-life”, in September 2011. I am grateful to the participants who contributed to discussion of the paper and to Kerry Gutridge for reviewing the text. I would particularly like to thank Richard Huxtable for his support and detailed comments on earlier drafts. Finally, I would like to thank the anonymous referees for critical comments and suggestions that led to improvements in the quality of this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Assemblée Nationale. (2004). Mission d’information sur l’accompagnement de la fin de vie, n° 1708, vol. 1.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Assemblée Nationale. (2004). Mission d’information sur l’accompagnement de la fin de vie, n° 1708, vol. 2.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Assemblée Nationale. (2008). Mission d’évaluation de la loi n° 2005-370 du 22 avril 2005 relative aux droits des malades et à la fin de vie, n° 1287, vol. 2.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2008). Principles of biomedical ethics (6th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blank, R. H. (2011). End-of-life decision making across cultures. The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 39, 201–214.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    BMA. (1995). Advanced statements about medical treatment. London: BMJ Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    CCNE. (2000). Avis n°63 Fin de vie, arrêt de vie, euthanasie. Éthique et recherche biomédicale.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cohen, J., Marcoux, I., Bilsen, J., Deboosere, P., Van der Wal, G., & Deliens, L. (2006). European public acceptance of euthanasia: Socio-demographic and cultural factors associated with the acceptance of euthanasia in 33 European countries. Social Sciences and Medicine, 63, 743–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Crane, D. (2009). The sanctity of social life: Physicians’ treatment of critically Ill patients. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers (Original work published 1977).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dickenson, D. (1999). Cross-cultural issues in European bioethics. Bioethics, 913, 249–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ditto, P. H., et al. (2006). Context changes choices: A prospective study of the effects of hospitalization on life-sustaining treatment preferences. Medical Decision Making, 26, 313–322.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dresser, R. (1986). Life, death, and incompetent patients: Conceptual infirmities and hidden values in the law. Arizona Law Review, 28, 373–405.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dunn, M., & Foster, C. (2010). Autonomy and welfare as amici curiae. Medical Law Review, 18, 86–95.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Durkheim, E. (2007). Le suicide. Paris: PUF (Original work published 1897).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dworkin, R. (1993). Life’s dominion: An argument about abortion, Euthanasia, and individual freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fagerlin, A., & Schneider, C. E. (2004). Enough: The failure of the living will. Hastings Center Report, 34, 30–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Feuillet, B. (2011). Les directives anticipées en France, un indice de consentement à effets limités. In S. Negri (Ed.), Self-determination, dignity and end-of-life care. Regulating advance directives in international and comparative perspective (pp. 195–207). Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Foster, C. (2009). Choosing life, choosing death. The tyranny of autonomy in medical ethics and law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fovargue, S., & Miola, J. (2010). One step forward, two steps back? The GMC, the common law and ‘informed’ consent’. Journal of Medical Ethics, 36, 494–497.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    GMC. (2008). Consent: Patients and doctors making decisions together. London: General Medical Council.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    GMC. (2010). Treatment and care towards the end of life: Good practices in decision making. London: General Medical Council.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    HE v A Hospital NHS Trust [2003] 2 FLR 408 (FD).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hope, T., Slowther, A., & Eccles, J. (2009). Best interests, dementia and the Mental Capacity Act (2005). Journal of Medical Ethics, 35, 733–738.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Horn, R. (2011, forthcoming). Euthanasia and end-of-life practices in France and Germany. A comparative study. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. doi:10.1007/s11019-011-9357-5.
  26. 26.
    House of Lords. (1994). Report of the select committee on medical ethics. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Locke, J (1993) The two treatises of government. Ed. by Goldie M. London: Everyman (Original work published 1690).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Loi n°. (2002-303). du 4 mars 2002 relative aux droits des malades et à la qualité du système de santé. Journal Officiel 54, 4118.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Loi n°. (2005-370). du 22 avril 2005 relative aux droits des malades et à la fin de vie. Journal Officiel 59, 7089.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Maclean, A. R. (2008). Advance directives and the rocky waters of anticipatory decision-making. Medical Law Review, 16, 1–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Meñaca, A., Evans, N., Andrew, E., Toscani, F., Finetti, S., Gómez-Batiste, X. et al. (2011). End-of-life care across Southern Europe: A critical review of cultural similarities and differences between Italy, Spain and Portugal. Critical Review in Oncology Hematology. doi:10.1016/j.critrevonc.2011.06.002.
  32. 32.
    Mendelson, D., & Stoltzfus Jost, T. (2003). A comparative study of the law of palliative care and end-of-life treatment. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 31, 134–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mental Capacity Act Code of Practice. (2007). Chapter 4 available at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/related/ukpgacop_20050009_en.pdf. Accessed 6 September 2011.
  34. 34.
    Michalowski, S. (2005). Advance refusals of life-sustaining medical treatment: The relativity of an absolute right. The Modern Law Review, 68, 958–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mill, M. S. (2005). On liberty. New York: Cosimo classics (Original work published 1859).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mr Leslie Burke v GMC [2005] EWCA Civ 1003. Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Münch, R. (1986). Die Kultur der Moderne (2) Ihre Entwicklung in Frankreich und Deutschland. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D., Fisher, S., Cartwright, C., Deliens, L., Miccinesi, G., Norup, M., et al. (2006). End-of-life decision making in Europe and Australia. Archives for Internal Medicine, 166, 921–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Re AK (medical treatment: consent) [2001] 1 FLR 129.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Re B (adult: refusal of medical treatment) [2002] 2 All ER 449.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Re C (adult: refusal of treatment) [1994] 1 WLR 290.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Re T (adult: refusal of treatment) [1992] 4 All ER 649.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ricot, J. (2008). Directives anticipées, révélateur de la nouvelle relation de soin. Bulletin de la Société des Sciences Médicales, 3, 399–413.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rodríguez-Arias, D., et al. (2007). Advance directives and the family: French and American perspectives. Clinical Ethics, 2, 139–145.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rousseau, J.-J. (2006) Du contrat social. Paris: Flammarion (Originial work publised 1762).Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Schicktanz, S., Raz, A., & Shalev, C. (2010). The cultural context of end-of-life ethics: A comparison of Germany and Israel. Cambridge Quaterly of Health Care Ethics, 19, 381–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sidaway v Bethlem Royal Hospital Governors [1985] 1 All ER 643.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital [1985] AC 871.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Smith v Tunbridge Wells Health Authority [1994] 5 Med. LR 334.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Toscani, F., & Farsides, C. (2006). Deception, catholicism, and hope: Understanding problems in the communication of unfavorable prognoses in traditionally-catholic countries. The American Journal of Bioethics, 6, W6–W18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    W v M and S and A NHS Primary Care Trust [2011] EWHC 2443.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Ethics in MedicineUniversity of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations