Critically evaluate the current law relating to criminal liability for omissions

With reference to decided cases critically evaluate the current law relating to criminal liability for omissions.

R v Miller (1983)
He must have created the dangerous situation inadvertently but he never released it.

*Keeping patients alive.

R v Stone & Dobinson (1977)
If you act on euthanasia, it is a positive act, not omission.

*Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993)
The court stated when removed the medication is a positive act, HOL gave permission.
It was held that is was unlawful for doctors to simply stop treatment if its continuance would confer some benefit on the patient. If no benefit at all would be conferred by the continuance of medical treatment, then the doctor are under no duty to continue to treat the patients.

According to 3 Lordships (Lord Lowry, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, and Lord Mustill) descending judgement, the distinction drawn by the HOL between an act and an omission is dubious (doesn’t make sense) in moral terms. What they suggesting is no different from what Prof William Wilson suggesting. Giving Antony slowly die is more tortures than just giving him medicine to kill him.
Find out more argument on this.

Whether omission should become a general duty of care.

1. It has been a long debate between the author whether the omission should be punished by law or not, many of them have argued in favour of it and many of them are going against of its idea. For example, B raped S, as a result S suffered from post trauma stress and wanted to commit suicide. She stood at the edge of her window saw her on the tenth floor but her maid saw what she was trying to do but did not stop her. S jumped to her death.  
• Distinguish main contract is a private contract.
• The main has a voluntary assumption of responsibility to the boss.
• Do we have created a dangerous situation?
• In relation to S, should the law of omission cover general duty?
2. Professor Andrew Ashworth is a strong supporter of the punishment for an omission, but at the same time, he put some limitation on the punishment on omission. The professor talk of 2 different views: conventional view and social responsibility view.
• In the conventional view, where he suggest that criminal law should not punish people unless and until there is a clear case. (Taking a very parental approach, we cannot simply punish people because morally we need to help people. The guilty act must be in the sense of law and not in the sense of morality. The law cannot by using the backdoor impose morality hence legality on me, force me to do something. In certain circumstances, you must impose duty but on circumstance situation. For example, people are drowning not because you didn't help is because they fell. Give supporting argument.)
• In social responsibility view, there is times and situation where people should be held one another and people living in the same society does owe some duties to others living with them.
3. Professor William Wilson
• we might be killing somebody but it seems morally right, but we don't do anything seems morally wrong) 
4. All of the current authors who support the theory of punishment are agree on the point that there should be certain circumstances where a person should ensure his safety first before helping others. “He should not put his life in danger in order to save other”. The moral duties should always be present in the society for the mutual relation among people.
• To examine the concept of R v Kennedy (No.2) (1999), an action of the victim.
• K gave B injection fill with drugs but the victim himself injected and died. The court stated since B is the one who injected, B conduct break the COC and there is no responsibility. Automatically, K is not responsible for B death.
• In R v Evans (Gemma) (2009), the appellant obtained heroin and gave some to her sister who self-administered the drug. The appellant was concerned that her sister overdosed so decided to spend the night with her but did not try to obtain medical assistance as he was worried she would get into trouble. COA stated for the purposes of gross negligence manslaughter, when a person had created or contributed to the creation of a state of affairs that he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, had become life threatening then, normally, a duty to act by taking reasonable steps to save the others life would arise.
• Same facts, different conclusion. In my opinion, Evans is not coming from the pageant hole, it is from the social responsibility view. (Positive act and negative act discussion)
5. There are also authors who support omission not to be penalised as they claimed that it is more of a moral duty than a statutory one.
6. Professor Glanville William is in an agreement with that point (don't take moral obligation into statutory): “a crime can be committed by omission, but there can be no omission in law in the absent of duty of act. The reason is obvious because if there is an act, someone acts but if there is an omission, everyone omits. (He is worried about floodgate)
7. Comparative Study. Countries already have existing general duty of care. Can the UK adopt the rule?