Acts and omissions

In ordinary language, and in this context, the distinction between acts and omissions is the distinction between a person who acts positively to bring about a death and a person who omits to intervene in a course of events in which he could have prevented death. However, the term ‘omission’ has also been legally interpreted to cover the situation where a doctor has to perform what is ostensibly an action in order to withdraw (life-sustaining) treatment from a patient. This facet of the distinction is one created by the courts as a tactic to provide doctors with a defence against a murder charge where death is the certain, or even foreseen consequence of a patient’s death. The distinction is inextricably linked with intention, with causation and with the perceived difference between killing and letting die. This is because if the doctor ‘acts’ he would be deemed to have the intention required to kill (cause the death of) the patient. Conversely, if he has merely omitted to act, the intent to kill is considered absent and he would be regarded as having allowed or permitted the patient to die of his pre-existing illness or injury.