Judge Gordon Ashton raised an important issue when he referred in a recent article (see [1999] Gazette, 20 October, 37) to proposals to change the law relating to the needs of elderly and disabled people.

This is made even more topical by the publication of the government report 'Making decisions', but Judge Ashton's conclusions demand serious questioning.In December 1997, the government produced its consultation paper which contained numerous proposals concerning possible changes in the law dealing with the management of the affairs of those who, because of mental impairment, are not able to manage them themselves.In that consultation paper, the government declared 'that there should be no move towards the legislation of euthanasia'.

At first sight this might appear comforting if it were not for the f act that earlier the paper defines euthanasia as 'a deliberate intervention with the express aim of ending life'.

This definition makes no mention of omission to act, either accidental, negligent or even deliberate.

The practice of euthanasia under English criminal law constitutes homicide, and it is a well-established principle of our law that homicide can be committed by omission just as well as by commission.The failure to include deliberately omitting to act in the definition of euthanasia is difficult to understand, for it is precisely omitting to act which is the essential element of so many forms of euthanasia such as, for example, living wills.

Fortunately, the government appears to have accepted the real dangers of living wills and has decided that they 'should not be taken forward'.Even more dangerous than living wills are the proposals for continuing powers of attorney (CPA).

Most lawyers will be aware of enduring powers of attorney (EPA), established by the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985, by which an adult may appoint another person or persons to act as his attorney to manage his finances.

Unlike other powers of attorney, EPAs continue in force even if the donor later becomes mentally incapable.In general, EPAs have proved to be a helpful and useful aid in managing the affairs of (usually) elderly people, but EPAs have their dangers.

A great deal depends on choosing a right trustworthy attorney and many solicitors will have had misgivings concerning the appointment of certain attorneys whom the client donor insists has his full confidence.

The dangers inherent in EPAs are generally recognised and the Law Society itself has recently published a booklet which highlights the risk of abuse of EPAs.

The booklet reports the Master of the Court of Protection's estimate that financial abuse occurs in 10% to 15% of cases of registered EPAs and even more with unregistered powers.

These estimates of abuse are disturbingly vague.EPAs give attorneys powers only in relation to the donor's financial affairs, but CPAs, as proposed would give attorneys authority to act also in relation to the donor's 'personal and healthcare matters'.

This would give the attorney control over the fate of the donor, once the CPA came into force.

This might present no problem with a dutiful attorney but it is not difficult to imagine an attorney refusing treatment on behalf of a granny, knowing that the sooner she dies, the sooner the inheritance will fall in.

Solicitors, better than anyone, know this is not fanciful.The Government has now announced that it intends to proceed with plans to introduce CPAs, despite all the dangers they present.

It is true that certain safeguards, even compulsory registration, are proposed but these are unlikely to be of much practical effect against a weak or an unscrupulous attorney.The law relating to vulnerable people should be kept under constant review and genuine improvements should be sought - but if the legal regime gives persons with vested interests the authority to make decisions of life or death for vulnerable people in their power, then the plight of all such vulnerable people in that environment will be precarious indeed.