‘A woman who accompanied her husband to Dignitas can claim his £1.8 million estate, a High Court judge has ruled in a test case.’
Daily Telegraph, 21st February 2019
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Do terminally ill patients have the right to die at the time and place of their choosing, with the attendance of a medical practitioner? The ban on assisted suicide has raised one of the great moral questions of our time. The Chief Executive of Dignity in Dying, Sarah Wootton discusses their campaign to change the law with Rosalind English.’
Law Pod UK, 28th January 2019
Source: audioboom.com
‘A terminally ill man has lost a legal battle at the UK’s highest court over his right to die.’
BBC News, 27th November 2018
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘In R. (on the application of Conway) v Secretary of State for Justice [2018] EWCA Civ 1431 the Court of Appeal held that the blanket ban on assisted suicide in the Suicide Act 1961 s.2(1) was a necessary and proportionate interference with the ECHR art.8 rights of the appellant.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 9th July 2018
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘A terminally-ill man who wants to be helped to die has lost his legal challenge at the Court of Appeal.’
BBC News, 27th June 2018
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A terminally ill man has begun an Appeal Court challenge against a ban on assisted dying, arguing he should not be forced to endure a “distressing and undignified” death. Noel Conway, who says he feels “entombed” by his motor neurone disease, is fighting for the right to enlist medical professionals to end his life.’
The Independent, 2nd May 2018
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘In Noel Douglas Conway v The Secretary of State for Justice [2018] EWCA Civ 16, the Court of Appeal gave an unusually detailed judgment granting permission to appeal against the decision of the Divisional Court in Conway, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] EWHC 640, refusing permission for the applicant to judicially review the criminalisation of physician-assisted suicide under the Suicide Act 1961.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 30th January 2018
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘A terminally ill man has won the right to continue battling for the right to a “peaceful and dignified death” in Britain’s courts.’
The Independent, 18th January 2018
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘In recent years, disabled and terminally ill applicants have brought repeated legal challenges to section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961, which makes it an offence intentionally to do an act capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide or attempted suicide of another. Anna Beale considers Conway v Secretary of State for Justice, the most recent contribution to this difficult and complex area of law.’
Cloisters, 6th October 2017
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘This case concerns the issue of provision of assistance to a person with a serious wasting disease who wishes to commit suicide, so as to be able to exercise control over the time of his death as the disease reaches its final stages. See our previous post on it here and here. It follows a line of cases which have addressed that or similar issues, in particular R (Pretty) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2001] UKHL 61; [2002] 1 AC 800 (“Pretty“), R (Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] UKHL 54; [2010] 1 AC 345 (“Purdy“) and R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2014] UKSC 38; [2015] AC 657(“Nicklinson“). Permission to bring this judicial review was granted by the Court of Appeal (McFarlane and Beatson LJJ, see [2017] EWCA Civ 275), having earlier been refused by the Divisional Court (Burnett LJ, Charles and Jay JJ) at [2017] EWHC 640 (Admin’
UK Human Rights Blog, 11th October 2017
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Mr Noel Conway, who is 67 and suffering from motor neurone disease, has lost the latest round in his bid to allow doctors to prescribe him a lethal dose of drugs when his health deteriorates further. His legal team had argued that he faced a stark and unfair choice: he could either bring about his own death while still physically able to do so, or await death with no control over how and when it came.’
Law & Religion UK, 5th October 2017
Source: www.lawandreligionuk.com
‘A man who is terminally ill with motor neurone disease has lost his High Court challenge to fight for his right to die.
The judgment does confirm, however, that the courts do have the authority to declare current inconsistency with human rights.’
The Independent, 5th October 2017
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘A judge has made a landmark ruling that legal permission will no longer be required by a court before life-supporting treatment is withdrawn from patients suffering from severely debilitating illnesses, lawyers say.’
Daily Telegraph, 21st September 2017
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The High Court is to begin hearing the legal challenge of a terminally ill man who wants the right to die. Noel Conway, who is 67 and has motor neurone disease, wants a doctor to be allowed to prescribe a lethal dose when his health deteriorates further.’
BBC News, 17th July 2017
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘There are so many reasons why we value and promote choice and autonomy. The country and news media quite rightly protests with outrage when bad things happen to good people as their lives and civil liberties are destroyed by acts of terrorism and grievous crimes.’
OUP Blog, 21st April 2017
Source: www.blog.oup.com
‘A terminally ill former lecturer has won the right to challenge the legal ban on assisted dying in the hope that he can end his life at home surrounded by his family.
The Guardian, 12th April 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘By 2:1, the Administrative Court has dismissed the application of Mr Noel Conway for a declaration that s 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961 breached his human rights under Articles 8(1) and 14 ECHR.’
Law & Religion UK, 3rd April 2017
Source: www.lawandreligionuk.com
‘Noel Douglas Conway, 67, is a victim of motor neurone disease. He has just been refused permission to seek judicial review of the criminalisation of physician-assisted suicide under the Suicide Act 1961. The High Court considered that Parliament has recently examined the issue following the Supreme Court decision in the 2014 Nicklinson case , and two out of three judges concluded that it would be “institutionally inappropriate” for a court to declare that s.2(1) of the Suicide Act was incompatible with the right to privacy and autonomy under Article 8 of the ECHR. Charles J dissented (and those who are interested in his opinion might want to look at his ruling last year in the case of a minimally conscious patient).’
UK Human Rights Blog, 2nd April 2017
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025