Log In
Or create an account -> 
Imperial Library
  • Home
  • About
  • News
  • Upload
  • Forum
  • Help
  • Login/SignUp

Index
Cover Half-title Title Copyright Dedication Contents List of Contributors Table of Cases Table of Legislation Table of International Conventions Introduction
I. THE LANDSCAPE, THE SUB-TERRAIN AND THE HORIZON II. CONCLUSION
1. Doodeward v Spence (1908)
I. INTRODUCTION II. DOODEWARD V SPENCE: THE FACTS III. THE JUDGMENTS IV. LATER CASES V. CONCLUSION
2. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957]: Medical Law’s Accordion
I. INTRODUCTION II. BOLAM—THE FACTS AND THE DECISION III. ‘OLD’ BOLAM AND ITS EXPANDING INFLUENCE IV. BOLITHO—‘NEW’ BOLAM ARRIVES V. CONTRACTING AGAIN—(SOME OF) THE WALLS CLOSE IN VI. THE PLACE OF BOLAM TODAY—AND WHAT ABOUT THE FUTURE?
3. Re B (A Minor) (Wardship: Sterilisation) [1988]: ‘People Like Us Don’t Have Babies’: Learning Disability, Prospective Parenthood and Legal Transformations
I. INTRODUCTION II. THE EMERGENCE OF LEARNING DISABILITY: MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE AND SOCIAL POLICY III. LEARNING DISABILITY IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS IV. LAW’S DEFERENCE TO MEDICINE V. THE PROBLEM OF RIGHTS VI. DISPUTING THE NATURAL—SEXUALITY AND DISABILITY AS SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED VII. REPOSITIONING THE ‘MEDICAL’ VIII. THE POSSIBILITIES FOR LEGAL TRANSFORMATION IX. AN INCREASED SCRUTINY? X. A SYSTEM RESPONSIVE TO CHANGE?
4. Re B (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment) [1981]: ‘The Child Must Live’: Disability, Parents and the Law
I. INTRODUCTION II. FACTS III. THE JUDGMENTS IV. THE CONTEXT OF THE DECISION V. CRITIQUE OF THE DECISION VI. THEORIES OF DISABILITY VII. THE NATURE OF PERSONHOOD VIII. BEST INTERESTS IX. PRENATAL TESTING X. CONCLUSION
5. Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993]
I. INTRODUCTION II. COMMON GROUND III. THE SPEECHES IV. THE INGREDIENTS IN THE MIX IV. BLAND: THE AFTERMATH V. CONCLUSION
6. R v Cambridge Health Authority, ex parte B (A Minor) [1995]: A Tale of Two Judgments
I. INTRODUCTION II. OVERVIEW III. GROUNDS OF REVIEW AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW IV. CALIBRATING THE STANDARD OF REVIEW V. THE ETHICAL SUB-TERRAIN VI. CONCLUSION
7. R v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust, ex parte L [1999]: Bournewood Fifteen Years On
I. BACKGROUND II. THE HOUSE OF LORDS’ DECISION III. HL V UNITED KINGDOM IV. STEPS TO PLUG THE GAP V. THE DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY SAFEGUARDS VI. THE WAY FORWARD?
8. Re MB (An Adult: Medical Treatment) [1997] and St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust v S [1998]: The Dilemma of the ‘Court-Ordered’ Caesarean
I. INTRODUCTION II. THE LANDMARK CASES III. ANALYSIS OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE DECISIONS IN THE LANDMARK CASES IV. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
9. R v Department of Health, ex parte Source Informatics Ltd [1999]
I. INTRODUCTION II. CASE HISTORY III. REASONABLE EXPECTATION AND ARTICLE 8 ECHR IV. CONSENT AND AUTONOMY V. ANONYMITY VI. RELEVANCE OF DETRIMENT VII. IDENTIFIABILITY IS NOT DETERMINATIVE VIII. ENTITLED TO PROTECTION IX. DATA PROTECTION LAW X. CONCLUSION
10. McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [2000] and Cattanach v Melchior [2003]
I. INTRODUCTION II. THE SEEDS OF ‘WRONGFUL CONCEPTION’ CASES III. ENGLISH AND SCOTTISH LAW ON WRONGFUL CONCEPTION PRIOR TO 1999 IV. SEARCHING FOR THE RATIO IN MCFARLANE AND CATTANACH V. MCFARLANE AND CATTANACH : LANDMARK CASES—ON ROCKALL?
11. Chester v Afshar [2004] 12. R (on the Application of Burke) v General Medical Council [2004]; Burke v United Kingdom [2006]: Contemporaneous and Advance Requests: The Fight for Rights at the End of Life
I. INTRODUCTION II. BACKGROUND III. WITHHOLDING AND WITHDRAWING LIFE-PROLONGING TREATMENT FROM CAPACITATED PATIENTS IV. WITHHOLDING AND WITHDRAWING LIFE-PROLONGING TREATMENT FROM INCAPACITATED PATIENTS V. ADVANCE DIRECTIVES VI. THE NEED TO INVOLVE THE COURT VII. CONCLUSION
13. The Right to Die and the Right to Help: R (on the Application of Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] and Its Legacy
I. BACKGROUND: EUTHANASIA AND ASSISTED DYING IN ENGLISH LAW II. THE PURDY DECISION III. AFTERMATH AND THE NICKLINSON LITIGATION IV. PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION AND STANDARDS OF FORESEEABILITY V. THE WIDER DEBATE
14. Yearworth and Others v North Bristol NHS Trust [2009]
I. INTRODUCTION II. YEARWORTH: THE FACTS III. DEVELOPMENTS SINCE YEARWORTH IV. CONCLUSION
15. A, B and C v Ireland [2010]
I. INTRODUCTION II. SOCIAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT III. FACTS AND CLAIMS IV. THE ARTICLES 2, 3 AND 14 CLAIMS V. THE ARTICLE 8 CLAIMS VI. AFTERMATH VII. IMPACT OF A, B AND C AND WHY IT DESERVES LANDMARK STATUS VIII. CONCLUSION IX. POSTSCRIPT
Index
  • ← Prev
  • Back
  • Next →
  • ← Prev
  • Back
  • Next →

Chief Librarian: Las Zenow <zenow@riseup.net>
Fork the source code from gitlab
.

This is a mirror of the Tor onion service:
http://kx5thpx2olielkihfyo4jgjqfb7zx7wxr3sd4xzt26ochei4m6f7tayd.onion