You are going to explore 4 case studies, which though 'extreme' cases, are based on real-life events.
Click on any of the cases below to begin.
Diane
Diane had motor neurone disease. She had little movement and no mobility, and was dependent upon 24-hour support for all her physical needs. She was aware of the terminal prognosis for her condition, and wished to end her own life before she entered the final stages, in order to avoid the inevitable distress to herself and her husband, who cared for her. She did not, however, have the physical capability to take her own life, but her husband was willing to assist her suicide.
Do you think she has a right to proceed with this plan?
You might argue that:
- a right to life implies also a right to die at a time and in a manner of ones choosing
- a disabled person should have the same opportunity to take their own life as a non-disabled person, even if this requires assistance
You might argue that:
- no-one has a right to die
- she does not have the right to ask her husband to commit a criminal offence
Diane asked the court to guarantee that although assisting suicide is a criminal offence her husband should not be prosecuted after her death. She claimed that the right to life (article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights) implied also a right to die, and that preventing her from exercising this right was in breach of her right to protection from inhuman and degrading treatment (article 3, ECHR).
What do you think the court should rule?
You might argue that:
- He should be free to support her wishes, given that she is not in a position to bring about her own death as a result of her physical impairment
- He should be protected because he is not in a position to exercise free choice due to the nature of their relationship
You might argue that:
- A criminal act is a criminal act, and should not be condoned in advance
- He has freedom of choice, irrespective of the nature of their relationship, and must accept the consequences
The court ruled against Diane’s application, refusing to offer immunity from prosecution for her husband. Some time later Diane died.
Do you think the court ruling produced a good outcome?
You might argue that:
- The law did not prevent Diane and her husband acting as they wished, it merely upheld the principle of accountability for criminal action
- Law has to balance conflicting rights and interests and did so appropriately in this case
You might argue that:
- The law should have attempted to promote Diane's autonomy, given her husband's wish to do so
- The law left Diane and her husband vulnerable to greater distress through uncertainty about the consequences of exercising their autonomy
You might think that this case illustrates some or all of the following points:
- Law can be called upon to determine matters of life and death
- A right to life is not the same as a right to die in the manner of ones choosing
- Law can be asked to balance conflicting rights and interests
- The right decision in law may not be right for everyone
Jodie & Mary
Babies Jodie and Mary were conjoined twins. Mary, the weaker twin, was reliant upon Jodie's heart to keep her alive. If the twins were separated, Mary would die. Jodie was in better health, but Mary's dependence upon her was sapping her strength. If the twins were not separated, Jodie's heart would keep both of them alive for a while, but the strain would eventually overtax her system and they would both die. Their parents argued against medical intervention on religious grounds.
Do you think the parents have a right to make the decision here?
You might argue that:
- Parents have the right to make decisions on behalf of their children
- Their religious views should be respected
You might argue that:
- The children themselves have rights that should be considered beyond their parents' wishes
- The decision is just too complex and difficult to be left to those so closely involved and affected
The doctors responsible for the babies' care asked the court to rule on how they should proceed.
What do you think the court should rule?
You might argue that:
- Saving the life of one twin is better than allowing both to die
- Mary does not have the right to live at Jodie's expense
You might argue that:
- An operation that will knowingly cause Mary's death should not take place
- Changes in the twins' condition or developments in medical treatment might allow both to live whilst still conjoined
The court ruled that the twins should be separated. The operation took place, Mary died and Jodie returned to her parents' care once she was well enough.
Do you think the court ruling produced a good outcome?
You might argue that:
- The long term quality of life achieved for Jodie warranted the limit placed on Mary's life
- That the outcome was preferable to the alternative of no intervention that would have resulted in limited life for both children
You might argue that:
- Controlling life and death in this way was wrong and that nature should have been allowed to take its course
- The family's ability to live by its religious belief was compromised
You might think that this case illustrates some or all of the following points about the relationship between law and social work:
- Law can be called upon to determine matters of life and death
- A right to life can have different outcomes for different people
- Law can be asked to balance conflicting rights and interests
Michael
Michael, a disabled man in 70s, had received community care services for 2 years when he received a letter saying some of his services would be withdrawn because the council could no longer afford to provide them. He objected to this, on the grounds that his needs were the same as they had been for the past 2 years, and the council must in law do what was necessary to meet them.
Do you think it was reasonable for the council to cut Michael's services?
You might argue that:
- Scarce resources should be shared out equally, rather than some individuals get a good service and others potentially nothing
- The council has a duty to balance its books and must live within its budgets
You might argue that:
- Financial resources do not change individuals' rights to support
- Michael's needs have not changed, so neither should his services
Michael asked the court to overrule the council's decision and order them to reinstate his services.
What do you think the court should rule?
You might argue that:
- Michael's support should not be limited because of financial matters over which he has no control
- Need is an absolute concept which should not be dependent on resources
You might argue that:
- To do otherwise would open the door to other claims and create great financial problems
- Need is a relative concept, and must be determined by reference to the resources available to meet it
The divisional court first of all decided that a local authority could take resources into account when assessing need and when deciding whether to meet assessed need, but the court declared the council had acted unlawfully because it had not reassessed service users' needs prior to cutting services. Michael successfully appealed on the issue of resources being taken into account, the Appeal Court ruling that the local authority could not take resources into account. However, the local authority appealed to the House of Lords, which ruled (by a majority of 3 to 2) that resources could be taken into account.
Do you think the court ruling produced a good outcome?
You might argue that:
- A local authority can, as a result, lawfully make decisions that enable it to keep within its available resources
- A local authority can, as a result, lawfully meet what it regards to be the most pressing needs, prioritising those over others
You might argue that:
- It is now more difficult for service users to argue that their individual needs should be met, irrespective of resources
- Individual human rights are compromised
You might think that this case illustrates some or all of the following points about the relationship between law and social work:
- Law can be asked to balance conflicting rights and interests in the decisions that social workers make
- Law has important comment to make on the way in which social workers carry out their decisions, as well as the content of those decisions
- Legal decisions will consider both individual and collective needs, and may favour one over the other
David
David had a relationship with Kimberley during which Kimberley gave birth to a son. Later she became pregnant again, but this child was born after the relationship with David had ended and she had married someone else. David wished to maintain contact with both children as their father. Kimberley did not wish him to. Both children are too young to express a view.
Who do you think is right here?
You might argue that:
- Birth fathers have a right to involvement with their children
- Children have a right to involvement with their birth father
You might argue that:
- The relationship has ended and she is entitled to a clean break
- David has had no involvement with the second child, and may not even be the father
David applied to the court for tests on the children in order to establish paternity and for parental responsibility and contact orders in respect of both children. Kimberley opposed the applications.
Who do you think the court should support?
You might argue that:
- The tests are minor interventions that can establish important rights
- Certainty of paternity will promote the children's welfare
You might argue that:
- Establishing biological paternity will not necessarily establish what is in the children's best interests
- Biological paternity is irrelevant to good fathering
The court ordered the tests and, following medical advice to the effect that David was the father of the first child, awarded him parental responsibility for and contact with that child only.
Do you think the court ruling produced a good outcome?
You might argue that:
- Everyone involved is clear what the biological relationships are
- David and his child have the right to develop a relationship
You might argue that:
- Kimberley's right to exercise her parental responsibility has been undermined
- Parenting patterns within the family will be more complex and difficult to manage as a result
You might think that this case illustrates some or all of the following points about the relationship between law and social work:
- Law can be asked to balance conflicting rights, wishes and interests between the adults in families
- Law can be asked to balance conflicting rights, wishes and interests between parents and children
- Legal decisions can create patterns of relationship within families
- The rights and responsibilities of parenting are considered in tandem with the needs and intersts of children
- Law can be called upon to determine matters of life and death
- Something as fundamental as a right to life can have different outcomes for different people
- Law can be asked to balance conflicting rights, wishes and interests
- The right decision in law may not be right for everyone
- Legal decisions will consider both individual and collective needs, and may favour one over the other
- Legal decisions can create patterns of relationship within families
- The rights and responsibilities of parenting are considered in tandem with the needs and interests of children