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 →