Similar Journals
|
Medical Law Review
Journal Prestige (SJR): 0.382  Citation Impact (citeScore): 1 Number of Followers: 26  Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)ISSN (Print) 0967-0742 - ISSN (Online) 1464-3790 Published by Oxford University Press  [419 journals]
|
- Times have changed'
-
Free pre-print version: Loading...Rate this result: What is this?Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors: Brazier M.
Pages: 213 - 215
Abstract: When my office phone rang some time in 2004 and I realised that the caller was Andrew Grubb, panic overcame me. It was not that I did not like and admire Andrew, but my over-active conscience kicked in. Was I late with a peer review for the Medical Law Review' Had I forgotten to write a book review' When I heard Andrew ask if I was interested in taking over as the Editor of the Medical Law Review, I muttered and stuttered for a few seconds. ‘Would I like to take over'’, ‘Do I like chocolate'’ Of course, I was interested and tremendously honoured. Becoming the Editor of the Review after its Founding Editors, Ian and Andrew, was a great responsibility. It felt like being entrusted with their much-loved child.
PubDate: Mon, 30 May 2022 00:00:00 GMT
DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwac013
Issue No: Vol. 30, No. 2 (2022)
-
- Beyond Criminalisation: Abortion Law Reform in Aotearoa New Zealand
-
Free pre-print version: Loading...Rate this result: What is this?Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors: Snelling J.
Pages: 216 - 242
Abstract: AbstractWith the enactment of the Abortion Legislation Act 2020, New Zealand radically transformed its approach to abortion. Abortion is no longer a crime, and is instead regulated under general health law, adopting a gestational model. Whilst some claim that reform was overdue, critics have described the new legislation as the ‘world’s most extreme abortion law’. This article investigates these claims through the lens of reproductive justice, a movement that emerged alongside the global campaign for recognition of reproductive rights. First, it outlines the tenets of reproductive justice, before critiquing New Zealand’s previous law, and considering arguments for its modernisation. It then describes how a growing number of jurisdictions have decriminalised abortion, with increasing pressure on other countries, including England and Wales, to similarly undertake law reform. Finally, it examines the main provisions of New Zealand’s law. It concludes that, to the extent that the new law enables access to timely, equitable, and publicly funded abortion services, it is consistent with the tenets of reproductive justice. By placing women at the centre of the law, it improves the welfare of women, but particularly marginalised women. However, it suggests that the current 20-week gestational test is arbitrary, with the originally proposed 22-week threshold preferable.
PubDate: Sat, 29 Jan 2022 00:00:00 GMT
DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwab051
Issue No: Vol. 30, No. 2 (2022)
-
- Vaccine Liability in the Light of Covid-19: A Defence of
Risk–Benefit-
Free pre-print version: Loading...Rate this result: What is this?Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors: Goldberg R.
Pages: 243 - 267
Abstract: AbstractVaccines have played an essential role in advancing medical treatment in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. However, no medical intervention is risk free, and vaccines are no exception to that rule. This article considers how lawyers have confronted or eschewed risk–benefit in the context of determining defectiveness in vaccine liability, with emphasis on the UK, European Union, and US experiences. It explores the potential role that risk–benefit may play in assessing liability for vaccines against the COVID-19 pandemic. It argues that a holistic, flexible approach to determining defectiveness embracing risk–benefit allows consideration of the overwhelming public interest derived from the continued availability and supply of vaccines, as well as immunity conferring benefits on both the individual and the community. If cases do emerge concerning the liability of a COVID-19 vaccine, immunity conferring benefits on both the individual and the community of the COVID-19 vaccines should be relevant in any determination of defectiveness. Such a holistic, flexible approach to defectiveness embracing risk–benefit can be used effectively to determine the entitled safety of a vaccine and may help to mitigate against the dangers of weakening confidence in the public’s vaccine uptake.
PubDate: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 00:00:00 GMT
DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwab053
Issue No: Vol. 30, No. 2 (2022)
-
- Presumed Dissent' Opt-out Organ Donation and the Exclusion of Organs
and Tissues-
Free pre-print version: Loading...Rate this result: What is this?Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors: Williams N; O’Donovan L, Wilkinson S.
Pages: 268 - 298
Abstract: AbstractIt is often claimed that a legitimate approach to organ donation is an opt-out system, also known as ‘presumed consent’, ‘deemed consent’, or ‘deemed authorisation’, whereby individuals are presumed or deemed willing to donate at least some of their organs and tissues after death unless they have explicitly refused permission. While sharing a default in favour of donation, such systems differ in several key respects, such as the role and importance assigned to the family members of prospective donors and their preferences, and exclusions and safeguards which often specify the demographic groups, purposes, or organs and tissues that will remain outside the scope of the opt-out system. Using the recent shift to opt-out in England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland as case studies, and by reference to the key goals motivating this shift across the UK, this article asks whether and, if so, why, and how, opt-out systems for post-mortem organ donation should restrict the types of organs and tissues for which consent is deemed. In other words, ought opt-out systems for PMOD presume dissent regarding the donation of certain organs and tissues'
PubDate: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 00:00:00 GMT
DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwac001
Issue No: Vol. 30, No. 2 (2022)
-
- ‘She Wanted to Listen to her General Practitioner’s Advice…’:
-
Free pre-print version: Loading...Rate this result: What is this?Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors: Carter D.
Pages: 299 - 323
Abstract: AbstractThis article examines the pressing global problem of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), applying motivational posture theory to demonstrate how AMR and the prescribing that drives it can be considered a regulatory challenge. Following an outline of AMR and the threat of the ‘superbugs’ to which it gives rise, the article assesses the regulatory nature of the ‘prescribing encounter’ in the primary care setting. It applies both a responsive regulatory lens and motivational posture theory to analyse over 100 narrative accounts of encounters between a general practitioner and a patient. In so doing, the article examines the discursive repertoires and cultural resources available to primary care patients to explain the prescribing encounter and the dynamics within it. It concludes that patients conceive of prescribers as regulatory authorities and prescribing itself as a regulatory encounter. On this basis, the article argues that applying responsive regulatory theory and practice in response to the AMR challenge is likely to find reasonable patient acceptance, offering a new approach to this currently intractable challenge. This article then offers an analysis of what factors indicate patient drift towards defiance of regulatory aims, and what engagement and support encourage a return to cooperation.
PubDate: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 00:00:00 GMT
DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwac003
Issue No: Vol. 30, No. 2 (2022)
-
- Duties of Candour in Healthcare: The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing
but the Truth'-
Free pre-print version: Loading...Rate this result: What is this?Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors: Quick O.
Pages: 324 - 347
Abstract: AbstractThe creation of professional and statutory duties of candour has formalised the requirement for clinicians and healthcare organisations to be honest with patients and families when treatment has gone wrong. This article explains the background to creating both duties, analyses the concept of candour, the role of apologies, and considers evidence about compliance. It argues that making candour a statutory requirement appropriately reflects the ethical imperative of telling the truth about harm and is a powerful signal for honesty. However, being candid is not easy in the context of complex professional cultures, the realities of delivering care in under-funded health systems, and in the shadow of possible legal and regulatory proceedings. Proposals in the current Health and Care Bill to create investigatory ‘safe spaces’ which prohibit the disclosure of information submitted to the Health Service Safety Investigations Body undermine candour. This article argues against such proposals, which are both wrong in principle and highly problematic in practice. Candour should be respected as a cardinal principle governing not only the conduct of those providing care, but also those who investigate such incidents. Harmed patients and their families deserve to know the whole truth.
PubDate: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 00:00:00 GMT
DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwac004
Issue No: Vol. 30, No. 2 (2022)
-
- Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust V AB [2020] EWCOP
40—Mental Capacity and the Anorexic Patient in the Court of Protection:
Understanding Values, Framing Matters and Specification of the Declaration
-
Free pre-print version: Loading...Rate this result: What is this?Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors: Watkins M.
Pages: 364 - 379
PubDate: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 00:00:00 GMT
DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwac002
Issue No: Vol. 30, No. 2 (2022)
-
- Jonathan Herring, Law Through the Life Course
-
Free pre-print version: Loading...Rate this result: What is this?Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors: Adkins V.
Pages: 380 - 387
Abstract: HerringJonathan, Law Through the Life Course, Bristol University Press, 2021, Paperback, 282pp, £29.99, ISBN 9781529204681
PubDate: Wed, 11 May 2022 00:00:00 GMT
DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwac008
Issue No: Vol. 30, No. 2 (2022)
-
- Imogen Goold, Cressida Auckland, and Jonathan Herring, Medical
Decision-Making on Behalf of Young Children: A Comparative Perspective-
Free pre-print version: Loading...Rate this result: What is this?Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors: Nottingham E.
Pages: 380 - 384
Abstract: GooldImogen, AucklandCressida, and HerringJonathan, Medical Decision-Making on Behalf of Young Children: A Comparative Perspective, Hart, 2020, hardback, 390 pp, £85.00, ISBN 978-1-5099-2856-9
PubDate: Sat, 09 Apr 2022 00:00:00 GMT
DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwac009
Issue No: Vol. 30, No. 2 (2022)
-
- Visa A. J. Kurki, A Theory of Legal Personhood
-
Free pre-print version: Loading...Rate this result: What is this?Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors: Dhru K.
Pages: 392 - 399
Abstract: KurkiVisa A. J., A Theory of Legal Personhood, Oxford University Press, 2019, Hardcover, 224 pp, £78, Open Access, ISBN 978-0-19-884403-7.
PubDate: Wed, 18 May 2022 00:00:00 GMT
DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwac010
Issue No: Vol. 30, No. 2 (2022)
-
- Jo Bridgeman, Medical Treatment of Children and the Law—Beyond
Parental Responsibilities-
Free pre-print version: Loading...Rate this result: What is this?Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors: Daly A.
Pages: 400 - 404
Abstract: BridgemanJo, Medical Treatment of Children and the Law—Beyond Parental Responsibilities, Routledge, 2021, Hardback, 248 pp, £120, ISBN 9780367200022.
PubDate: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 00:00:00 GMT
DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwac011
Issue No: Vol. 30, No. 2 (2022)
-
- Books Received
-
Free pre-print version: Loading...Rate this result: What is this?Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 405 - 405
Abstract: If you are interested in writing a review of one of the books listed below, or any relevant medical law title, please contact the Book Review Editor Dr Beverley Clough: b.clough@leeds.ac.uk. Reviews are usually about 2,000–4,000 words long, but shorter reviews will be considered with the agreement of the Review Editor.
PubDate: Mon, 30 May 2022 00:00:00 GMT
DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwac014
Issue No: Vol. 30, No. 2 (2022)
-
- The Omid Litigation: Should Courts Hear Oral Evidence When Determining the
Proportionality of Section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961'-
Free pre-print version: Loading...Rate this result: What is this?Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors: Papadopoulou N; Hobson C.
Pages: 348 - 363
Abstract: AbstractThis commentary reviews Mr Omid T’s legal challenge for a declaration of incompatibility under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Omid argued that section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961 is incompatible with his Articles 2 and 8 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Omid litigation considers whether it is appropriate and necessary that courts should hear primary oral evidence with cross-examination in determining the ethical, moral, and social policy issues that underlie the assessment of whether the Suicide Act is a disproportionate restriction on Omid’s rights. The question of what type of evidence would need to be available to courts to determine section 2(1)’s proportionality is an important question left unresolved by Nicklinson v Ministry of Justice. The Omid litigation concludes it is inappropriate and unnecessary that courts should hear oral evidence and permit cross-examination in determining section 2(1)’s proportionality. The commentary analyses the reasoning in the Omid litigation regarding why it is inappropriate to hear oral evidence with cross-examination in determining section 2(1)’s proportionality. The commentary then argues a persuasive case can be made for the appropriateness of oral evidence and cross-examination in assisted suicide proportionality cases.
PubDate: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 00:00:00 GMT
DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwab039
Issue No: Vol. 30, No. 2 (2021)
-
