DOCSLIB.ORG

Durham E-Theses

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Durham E-Theses Durham E-Theses Ending One's Own Life: Unjustiable Injustice BLACKBURN, REBECCA,LOUISE How to cite: BLACKBURN, REBECCA,LOUISE (2011) Ending One's Own Life: Unjustiable Injustice, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3451/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk ENDING ONE’S OWN LIFE: UNJUSTIFIABLE INJUSTICE Rebecca Louise Blackburn LLB Master of Jurisprudence Durham Law School Durham University 2011 i To the woman who has never ceased to provide her guidance, support and love. Thank you for believing in me, Mum. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ I TABLE OF LEGISLATION ................................................................................. IV TABLE OF CASES ............................................................................................... V STATEMENT OF COPYRIGHT.......................................................................... VI ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................... VII 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1 1.1 Aims ............................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Structure ...................................................................................................... 4 PART ONE THE CURRENT LEGAL POSITION ............................................. 6 2. ARBITRARY DISTINCTION ONE: ................................................................ 7 LIFE-SUSTAINING TREATMENT VS. NO LIFE-SUSTAINING TREATMENT 7 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 7 2.2 The Legal Position ....................................................................................... 8 2. 3 Murder? .................................................................................................... 10 2.4 Conceptually Valid?................................................................................... 12 2.5 Morally Valid? ........................................................................................... 14 2.6 Summary ................................................................................................... 20 3. ARBITRARY DISTINCTION TWO:.............................................................. 22 PALLIATIVE CARE VS NO PALLIATIVE CARE ............................................. 22 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 22 3.2 The Legal Position ..................................................................................... 23 3.3 Morally Valid? ........................................................................................... 24 3.4 Summary ................................................................................................... 27 4. ARBITRARY DISTINCTION THREE: .......................................................... 29 ABLE-BODIED VS. DISABLED ......................................................................... 29 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 29 i 4.2 The Legal Position ..................................................................................... 30 4.2.1 Suicide ................................................................................................ 30 4.2.2 Assisted Suicide .................................................................................. 31 4.3 Can the Prohibition of Assisted Suicide be Justified? ................................. 33 4.3.1 A Failure to Fully Justify Their Decision ............................................. 36 4.3.2 Overlooking Situations Where the Vulnerable Can Already Obtain Assistance .................................................................................................... 36 4.3.3 The Focus on Society as ‗Vulnerable‘ ................................................. 36 4.4 Evidence of Unfairness .............................................................................. 39 4.4.1 The DPP's Guidelines .......................................................................... 39 4.4.2 Death Tourism .................................................................................... 44 4.5 Summary ................................................................................................... 45 PART TWO POSSIBLE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE CURRENT UNFAIRNESS ....................................................................................................... 47 5. AN APPEAL TO THE RIGHTS OF THE SELF .............................................. 49 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 49 5.2 Dignity as Constraint ................................................................................. 50 5.2.1 A Valid Defence? ................................................................................ 51 5.3 The Sanctity of Life ................................................................................... 54 5.3.1 Religious ............................................................................................. 55 5.3.2 Non-Religious ..................................................................................... 57 5.3.3 A Valid Defence? ................................................................................ 59 5.3.3.1 Arbitrary and Unworkable Distinctions ........................................ 59 5.3.3.2 The Law Permits the Intentional Taking of an Innocent Human Life ................................................................................................................ 68 5.4 Summary ................................................................................................... 71 6. AN APPEAL TO THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS ................................................ 72 6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 72 6.2 The Logical Slippery Slope ........................................................................ 74 6.2.1 Misconceptualised ............................................................................... 76 ii 6.2.2 An Obvious Solution ........................................................................... 76 6.2.3 Doctors Will Not Necessarily be Assessing the Worth of a Patient‘s Life .................................................................................................................... 77 6.3 The Empirical Slippery Slope .................................................................... 78 6.3.1 Abortion .............................................................................................. 79 6.3.2 Other Jurisdictions .............................................................................. 81 6.4 The Bottom or the Top of the Slope: Which is Worse? ............................... 84 6.4.1 Numerical Speculation ........................................................................ 86 6.4.2 The Harm Caused to Those Requesting Assisted Suicide is Underplayed .................................................................................................................... 88 6.5 Current Legal Position ............................................................................... 89 6.6 Summary ................................................................................................... 92 7. CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................. 93 7.1 The Law is Unfair ...................................................................................... 93 7.2 The Unfairness is Unjustifiable .................................................................. 96 7.3 A Way Forward ......................................................................................... 97 BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................................................................100 iii TABLE OF LEGISLATION Primary Abortion Act 1967 Medicines Act 1967 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 Mental Capacity Act 2005 Mental Health Act 1983 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 Suicide Act 1961 Secondary Abortion Regulations 1991 (SI 1991/499) Bills Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill 2004-05 Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill 2005-06 Other Explanatory Notes to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 Council of Europe‘s Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine UNESCO‘s Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights iv TABLE OF CASES Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] A.C. 789. Ann Lindsell
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Southampton Student Law Review 2014 Volume 4, Issue 1
    Southampton Student Law Review 2014 volume 4, issue 1 1 Southampton Student Law Review Southampton Law School Published in the United Kingdom By the Southampton Student Law Review Southampton Law School University of Southampton SO17 1BJ In affiliation with the University of Southampton, Southampton Law School All rights reserved. Copyright© 2014 University of Southampton. No part of this publication may be reproduced, transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrieval system of any nature, without the prior, express written permission of the Southampton Student Law Review and the author, to whom all requests to reproduce copyright material should be directed, in writing. The views expressed by the contributors are not necessarily those of the Editors of the Southampton Student Law Review. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained in this journal is correct, the Editors do not accept any responsibility for any errors or omissions, or for any resulting consequences. © 2014 Southampton Student Law Review www.southampton.ac.uk/law/lawreview ISSN 2047 - 1017 This volume should be cited (2014) 4(1) S.S.L.R. Editorial Board 2014 Editors-in-Chief Elizabeth Herbert Ida Petretta Editorial Board Neil Brown Louise Cheung Dingjing (James) Huang Ebenezer Laryea Henry Pearce Viktor Weber Acknowledgements The Editors wish to thank our academic advisor Professor Oren Ben-Dor for his advice, commitment and support The Editors also wish to thank all members
    [Show full text]
  • The Queen on the Application of Mrs Dianne Pretty (Appellant) V Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) and Secretary of State for the Home Department
    House of Lords Judgments - The Queen on the Application of Mrs Dianne Pretty (Appellant) v Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) and Secretary of State for the Home Department (Interested Party) HOUSE OF LORDS Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Steyn Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough Lord Scott of Foscote OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF MRS DIANNE PRETTY (APPELLANT) v. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (RESPONDENT) AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (INTERESTED PARTY) ON 29 NOVEMBER 2001 [2001] UKHL 61 LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. No one of ordinary sensitivity could be unmoved by the frightening ordeal which faces Mrs Dianne Pretty, the appellant. She suffers from motor neurone disease, a progressive degenerative illness from which she has no hope of recovery. She has only a short time to live and faces the prospect of a humiliating and distressing death. She is mentally alert and would like to be able to take steps to bring her life to a peaceful end at a time of her choosing. But her physical incapacity is now such that she can no longer, without help, take her own life. With the support of her family, she wishes to enlist the help of her husband to that end. He himself is willing to give such help, but only if he can be sure that he will not be prosecuted under section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961 for aiding and abetting her suicide. Asked to undertake that he would not under section 2(4) of the Act consent to the prosecution of Mr Pretty under section 2(1) if Mr Pretty were to assist his wife to commit suicide, the Director of Public Prosecutions has refused to give such an undertaking.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Homicide Act for England and Wales?
    The Law Commission Consultation Paper No 177 (Overview) A NEW HOMICIDE ACT FOR ENGLAND AND WALES? An Overview The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Toulson, Chairman Professor Hugh Beale QC, FBA Mr Stuart Bridge Dr Jeremy Horder Professor Martin Partington CBE The Chief Executive of the Law Commission is Steve Humphreys and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ. This overview, completed on 28 November 2005, is circulated for comment and criticism only. It does not represent the final views of the Law Commission. For those who are interested in a fuller discussion of the law and the Law Commission's proposals, our formal consultation paper is accessible from http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/murder.htm, or you can order a hard copy from TSO (www.tso.co.uk). The Law Commission would be grateful for comments on its proposals before 13 April 2006. Comments may be sent either – By post to: David Hughes Law Commission Conquest House 37-38 John Street Theobalds Road London WC1N 2BQ Tel: 020-7453-1212 Fax: 020-7453-1297 By email to: [email protected] It would be helpful if, where possible, comments sent by post could also be sent on disk, or by email to the above address, in any commonly used format. All responses will be treated as public documents in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and may be made available to third parties.
    [Show full text]
  • Framing Youth Suicide in a Multi-Mediated World: the Construction of the Bridgend Problem in the British National Press
    City Research Online City, University of London Institutional Repository Citation: Akrivos, Dimitrios (2015). Framing youth suicide in a multi-mediated world: the construction of the Bridgend problem in the British national press. (Unpublished Doctoral thesis, City University London) This is the accepted version of the paper. This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link: https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/13648/ Link to published version: Copyright: City Research Online aims to make research outputs of City, University of London available to a wider audience. Copyright and Moral Rights remain with the author(s) and/or copyright holders. URLs from City Research Online may be freely distributed and linked to. Reuse: Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. City Research Online: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/ [email protected] FRAMING YOUTH SUICIDE IN A MULTI-MEDIATED WORLD THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BRIDGEND PROBLEM IN THE BRITISH NATIONAL PRESS DIMITRIOS AKRIVOS PhD Thesis CITY UNIVERSITY LONDON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES 2015 THE FOLLOWING PARTS OF THIS THESIS HAVE BEEN REDACTED FOR COPYRIGHT REASONS: p15, Fig 1.1 p214, Fig 8.8 p16, Fig 1.2 p216, Fig 8.9 p17, Fig
    [Show full text]
  • FOI 18/228 8Th November 2018 James Smith
    Our Ref: FOI 18/228 8th November 2018 James Smith [email protected] Dear James Smith, Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Thank you for your Freedom of Information request received on 15th October 2018. Request I would like to request, under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, a list of dissertation titles submitted for the universities LLB program for the academic years: 14/15, 15/16 and 16/17. 2014/15 Is organised crime a growing problem not only in the UK but throughout the world? If so, how much do the public know about organised crime and what is being done to effectively eradicate powerful organised crime groups across the world, and are those methods working? Is withdrawal of treatment merely a legal form of euthanasia? Combating national security in the UK/EU; assessing progress made, current fight and plan of action. Has the European Court of Justice’s focus on the principle of effectiveness and the ‘architecture’ of the union, left the founding humanitarian and philosophical ideals of the union merely an abstract notion of virtues. Do legal aid cuts threaten to deny justice? And should we be worried? Should the UK adopt the death sentence? The dissertation will aim to consider the relationship between law and religion in the European Union and critically discuss the views of scholars that Christian values should be implemented with regards to politics, law and individuals. “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”- Gerald Seymour. In light of this statement,
    [Show full text]
  • Death by Appointment
    Death by Appointment Death by Appointment: A Rational Guide to the Assisted Dying Debate By Ilora Finlay and Robert Preston Death by Appointment: A Rational Guide to the Assisted Dying Debate By Ilora Finlay and Robert Preston This book first published 2020 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2020 by Ilora Finlay and Robert Preston All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-5275-5978-5 ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-5978-3 CONTENTS Introduction ...................................................................................... 1 Chapter One ..................................................................................... 5 Assisted Dying and The Law By Robert Preston Chapter Two ................................................................................... 25 The Doctor's Dilemma By Ilora Finlay Chapter Three ................................................................................. 41 A Matter for Society By Robert Preston Chapter Four ................................................................................... 57 As Life Draws to a Close By Ilora Finlay Chapter Five ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Harmful Online Communications: the Criminal Offences a Consultation
    Harmful Online Communications: The Criminal Offences A Consultation paper Consultation Paper 248 Law Commission Consultation Paper 248 Harmful Online Communications: The Criminal Offences A Consultation Paper 11 September 2020 I © Crown copyright 2020 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/reform-of-the- communications-offences/ II The Law Commission – How we consult About the Law Commission: The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Rt Hon Lord Justice Green, Chair, Professor Sarah Green, Professor Nicholas Hopkins, Professor Penney Lewis, and Nicholas Paines QC. The Chief Executive is Phillip Golding. Topic of this consultation: We are consulting on reform of the communications offences (Malicious Communications Act 1988 and Communications Act 2003) in light of developments in online communication. We are also consulting on specific behaviours such as cyberflashing, pile-on harassment, and the glorification of both self-harm and violent crime. Geographical scope: This consultation applies to the law of England and Wales. Duration of the consultation: We invite responses from 11 September 2020 to 18 December 2020. Responses to the consultation may be sent: By email to [email protected] OR By post to Online Communications Team, Law Commission, 1st Floor, Tower, 52 Queen Anne’s Gate, London, SW1H 9AG.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislation Title
    FALKLAND ISLANDS _____________ Crimes Ordinance 2014 (No: 13 of 2014) ARRANGEMENT OF PROVISIONS CHAPTER 1 – PRELIMINARY PART 1 – PRELIMINARY AND INTERPRETATION Section 1. Title and commencement 2. Interpretation PART 2 – GENERAL PRINCIPLES Criminal liability 3. Age of criminal responsibility 4. Inferences as to intent 5. Automatism Offences committed outside the Falkland Islands 6. Offences committed partly outside the Falkland Islands 7. Offences to which sections 8 to 13 apply 8. Jurisdiction in respect of Group A offences 9. Questions immaterial to jurisdiction in the case of certain offences 10. Rules relating to the location of events 11. Conspiracy and encouraging 12. Extended jurisdiction in relation to certain attempts 13. Relevance of external law Alternative verdicts 14. Conviction of offence other than that charged 1 15. Person tried for offence may be convicted of ancillary offence Miscellaneous 16. Proceedings by and against spouses 17. Application of Ordinance to corporations 18. No requirement for corroboration PART 3 – ANCILLARY OFFENCES Attempts 19. Attempts generally 20. Application of procedural and other provisions to offences of attempt 21. Procedural rules 22. Effect of sections 19 to 21 on common law Conspiracy 23. Conspiracy 24. Conspiracy to commit offences outside the Falkland Islands 25. Exemptions from liability 26. Penalties 27. Restrictions on the commencement of proceedings 28. Conspiracy under other enactments 29. Effect of acquittal of other defendant 30. Abolitions, savings, transitional provisions Encouragement of offences 31. Offence of encouragement 32. Proving an offence under section 31 33. Supplemental provisions 34. Defences 35. Jurisdiction 36. Extended jurisdiction in certain cases 37. Commencement of proceedings, etc. for an offence 38.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines on Dealing with Cases of Encouraging Or Assisting Suicide (October 2012)
    RM Guidelines on Dealing with Cases of Encouraging or Assisting Suicide The Association of Chief Police Officers has agreed to these guidelines being circulated to, and adopted by, Police Forces in England, Wales & Northern Ireland. It is RESTRICTED under the Government Protective Marking Scheme and is not disclosable under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. ACPO © 2012 2 RESTRICTED Guidelines on Dealing with Cases of Encouraging or Assisting Suicide (October 2012) Document information Protective marking RESTRICTED Author CC David Crompton Force/Organisation South Yorkshire Police ACPO Business Area Crime APP/Reference Material Reference Material Contact details 0114 296 3931 Review date October 2014 Version 1.0 These guidelines have been produced and approved by the ACPO Crime Business Area. This document was considered and approved by the Professional Practice Gateway Group on the 19 th th July 2012. The document was approved by ACPO Cabinet on 10 October 2012. The purpose of this document is to set an approach for police forces & constabularies dealing with cases of encouraging or assisting suicide. It applies where the act that constitutes the encouragement or assistance takes place in England & Wales, and where any resulting suicide or attempted suicide takes place anywhere in the world It will be updated and re -published as necessary . Any queries relating to this document should be directed to either the author detailed above or the ACPO Programme Support Office on 020 7084 8959/8958. Association of Chief Police Officers of
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law the YEAR and a DAY RULE in HOMICIDE
    Criminal Law THE YEAR AND A DAY RULE IN HOMICIDE A Consultation Paper &- LAW COMMISSION CONSULTATION PAPER No 136 9 . The Law Commission was set up by section I of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Brooke, Chairman Professor Jack Beatson Miss Diana Faber Mr Charles Harpum Mr Stephen Silber, QC The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Collon and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1 N 2BQ. This Consultation Paper, completed for publication on 23 May 1994, is circulated for comment and criticism only. It does not represent the final views of the Law Commission. The Law Commission would be grateful for comments on this Consultation Paper before 31 October 1994. All correspondence should be addressed to: Ms C Haskell Law Commission Conquest House 37-38 John Street Theobalds Road London WClN 2BQ Tel: 071-411 1214 Fax: 071-41 1 1297 It may be helpful for the Law Commission, either in discussion with others concerned or in any subsequent recommendations, to be able to refer to and attribute comments submitted in response to this Consultation Paper. Any request to treat all, or part, of a response in confidence will, of course, be respected, but if no such request is made the Law Commission will assume that the response is not intended to be confidential. The Law Commission Consultation Paper No 136 Criminal Law The Year and a Day Rule \ in Homicide A Consultation Paper HMSO 0 Crown copyright
    [Show full text]
  • Conceptualizing Inchoate Complicity: the Normative and Doctrinal Case for Lesser Offenses As an Alternative to Complicity Liability
    Document1 (Do Not Delete) 5/10/2016 8:15 PM CONCEPTUALIZING INCHOATE COMPLICITY: THE NORMATIVE AND DOCTRINAL CASE FOR LESSER OFFENSES AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO COMPLICITY LIABILITY DENNIS J. BAKER* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 504 II. HISTORY AND DOCTRINE .............................................................. 509 III. THE LETTER OF THE LAW UNDER THE SERIOUS CRIME ACT 2007 .......................................................................................................... 514 IV. RECKLESSLY ENCOURAGING AND ASSISTING SEVERAL AND ALTERNATIVE CRIMES ........................................................................ 532 V. ENCOURAGING AND ASSISTING AN INNOCENT AGENT .................................................................................................................. 537 VI. CAUSATION, ACT CAPABLENESS, AND IMPOSSIBILITY ....... 540 VII. IMPOSSIBILITY AND CAPABILITY ............................................ 552 VIII. WHEN IS TRIVIAL ENCOURAGEMENT CAPABLE OF ENCOURAGING? ................................................................................... 557 IX. ATTEMPTS TO ATTEMPT AND THE SERIOUS CRIME ACT 2007 .................................................................................................................. 566 X. REMOTE ENCOURAGEMENT ........................................................ 575 XI. CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 586 * (M.Phil., Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Visiting Forces Act 1952 (C
    Visiting Forces Act 1952 (c. 67) 1 SCHEDULE – Offences referred to in s. 3 Document Generated: 2021-08-08 Status: Point in time view as at 27/04/1997. Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Visiting Forces Act 1952, SCHEDULE. (See end of Document for details) SCHEDULE OFFENCES REFERRED TO IN S. 3 1 In the application of section three of this Act to England and Wales and to Northern Ireland, the expression “offence against the person” means any of the following offences, that is to say:— (a) murder, manslaughter, rape [F1, torture], buggery [F2robbery] and assault [F3and any offence of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring suicide or an attempt to commit suicide]; and (b) any offence not falling within the foregoing sub-paragraph, being an offence punishable under any of the following enactments:— (i) the Offences against the M1Person Act, 1861, except section fifty- seven thereof (which relates to bigamy); F4(ii) the M2Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885; (iii) the M3Punishment of Incest Act, 1908; (iv) . F5 section eighty- nine of the M4Mental Health Act (Northern Ireland), 1948 (which relate respectively to certain offences against mentally defective females); (v) . F6 (vi) sections one to five and section eleven of the M5Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, and sections eleven, twelve, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen and twenty-one of the M6Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland), 1950; and (vii) the M7Infanticide Act, 1938 and the M8Infanticide Act (Northern Ireland), 1939. [F7and (vii)
    [Show full text]