Ethical judgments : re-writing medical law /
edited by Stephen W Smith, John Coggon, Clark Hobson, Richard Huxtable, Sheelagh McGuinness, José Miola, and Mary Neal.
imprint
Oxford ; Portland, Oregon : Hart Publishing, 2017.
description
xviii, 290 pages ; 24 cm
ISBN
1849465797 (pbk.), 9781509904143 (ePub), 9781509904150 (ePDF), 9781849465793 (pbk.)
format(s)
Book
Holdings
More Details
imprint
Oxford ; Portland, Oregon : Hart Publishing, 2017.
isbn
1849465797 (pbk.)
9781509904143 (ePub)
9781509904150 (ePDF)
9781849465793 (pbk.)
contents note
Introduction: Medicine in the courtroom : judgesm ethics and the law -- Re A (Conjoined Twins : Surgical Separation) [2001] Fam 147 -- R (on the Application of Axon) v Secretary of State for Health [2006] EWHC 37 (Admin) -- Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789 -- R v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, ex parte Blood [1999] Fam 151 -- Bolitho v Hackney Health Authority [1998] AC 232 -- R v Bourne [1939] 1 KB 687 -- Chester v Afshar [2005] 1 AC 134 -- R (on the Application of Nicklinson and Another) v Ministry of Justice [2014] UKSC 38 -- St George's Healthcare NHS Trust v S [1999] Fam 26 -- Conclusion: Medical law rewritten?
abstract
"This edited collection is designed to explore the ethical nature of judicial decision-making, particularly relating to decisions in the health/medical sphere, where judges are often called upon to make decisions in cases containing an explicit ethical component. However, judges do not receive any specific training in ethical decision-making, and often disown any place for ethics in their decision-making. Consequently, decisions made by judges do not present consistent or robust ethical theory, even when cases appear to rely on moral claims. This project explores this dichotomy by imagining a world in which decisions by judges have to be ethically as well as legally valid. Nine specific cases are reinterpreted in light of that requirement by leading academics in the fields of medical law and bioethics. Two judgements are written in each case, allowing for different views to be presented. Two commentaries-one ethical and one legal-explore the ramifications of these ethical judgments and provide an opportunity to explore the two judgments from additional ethical and legal perspectives. These four different approaches to each judgment allow for a rich and varied critique of the decisions and ethical theories and issues at play in each case."--
catalogue key
11278270
 
Includes bibliographical references and index.

  link to old catalogue

Report a problem