R v Adams (1957) - significado y definición. Qué es R v Adams (1957)
Diclib.com
Diccionario ChatGPT
Ingrese una palabra o frase en cualquier idioma 👆
Idioma:

Traducción y análisis de palabras por inteligencia artificial ChatGPT

En esta página puede obtener un análisis detallado de una palabra o frase, producido utilizando la mejor tecnología de inteligencia artificial hasta la fecha:

  • cómo se usa la palabra
  • frecuencia de uso
  • se utiliza con más frecuencia en el habla oral o escrita
  • opciones de traducción
  • ejemplos de uso (varias frases con traducción)
  • etimología

Qué (quién) es R v Adams (1957) - definición

ENGLISH MEDICAL CASE LAW

R v Adams (1957)         
R v Adams [1957] is an English case that established the principle of double effect applicable to doctors: that if a doctor "gave treatment to a seriously ill patient with the aim of relieving pain or distress, as a result of which that person's life was inadvertently shortened, the doctor was not guilty of murder" where a restoration to health is no longer possible. Such medicines are among those sometimes used in palliative care (the branch of medicine focussed on the relief of pain), most commonly for the most severe pain.
V&R Planning         
V&R Products; V&R International
is a Japanese film production and distribution company based in Tokyo which specializes in adult videos (AV).
R v DB         
CANADIAN LEGAL DECISION
R. v. D.B.
R v DB, 2008 SCC 25 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on youth justice and sentencing. The Court held the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act that required presumptive adult sentences for youth convicted of certain offences to be unconstitutional.

Wikipedia

R v Adams (1957)

R v Adams [1957] is an English case that established the principle of double effect applicable to doctors: that if a doctor "gave treatment to a seriously ill patient with the aim of relieving pain or distress, as a result of which that person's life was inadvertently shortened, the doctor was not guilty of murder" where a restoration to health is no longer possible. Such medicines are among those sometimes used in palliative care (the branch of medicine focussed on the relief of pain), most commonly for the most severe pain.

The case narrowly distinguished and approved the binding precedent R v Dyson which confirms it is no defence, in itself, in offences of homicide, that the victim was already dying from an illness if the defendant's conduct has accelerated death. Doctors have an absolute defence to this where they have "properly" eased the suffering of the patient.