@article{ref1,
title="Necessity and Nicklinson",
journal="Criminal law review (London, England)",
year="2013",
author="Stark, F.",
volume="2013",
number="",
pages="949-965",
abstract="This article analyses the argument in R. (on the application of Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice that a doctor who, in certain circumstances, killed a willing patient would have a defence of &quot;necessity&quot; to a count of murder or assisted suicide. It contends that, given the uncertainty surrounding the term &quot;necessity&quot; in English criminal law, this argument might be read in a number of ways. None of these interpretations suits the circumstances of Nicklinson. It will be concluded that consent would have been a better basis for the applicant's argument, although such an approach would have been similarly doomed to fail. © 2014 Thomson Reuters (Professional) UK Limited.<p /><p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="0011-135X",
doi="",
url="http://dx.doi.org/"
}