Cressida Auckland – författare

Unsurpassed in authority, reliability and accuracy; the 11th edition has been fully revised and updated to incorporate all relevant legislation for medical law courses. Blackstone's Statutes on Medical Law is an abridged collection of legislation carefully reviewed and selected by Cressida Auckland.With unparalleled coverage of medical law, Blackstone's Statutes on Medical Law leads the market: consistently recommended by lecturers and relied on by students for exam and course use. Blackstone's Statutes on Medical Law is: - Trusted: ideal for exam use - Practical: find what you need instantly- Reliable: current, comprehensive coverage - Relevant: content reviewed to match your course Digital formats and resources This edition is also available for students and institutions to purchase in digital format and is supported by online resources.- The e-book offers convenient access along with functionality tools and navigation features that offer extra learning support www.oxfordtextbooks.co.uk/ebooks- The online resources include video guides to reading and interpreting statutes, web links, exam tips, and an interactive sample Act of Parliament.

Medical Law: Text, Cases, and Materials provides a comprehensive discussion of the law and its ethical context using extracts from a wide range of cases and materials to encourage thoughtful debate.Medical Law offers students a thorough and accessible exploration of this complex topic. Key case extracts provide the legal context and background; extracts from materials supply differing ethical perspectives and outline current debates; and the authors' insightful commentary guide readers to help them form their own understanding of medical law.Key features:· Extracts from a wide variety of academic materials ensure students acquire an overview of a range of different perspectives · Insightful author commentary and detailed analysis ensures that students gain a thorough understanding of the ethical context in which the law operates · Central Issues sections at the start of each chapter outline the key concepts covered, and further reading sections at the end provide guidance on further sources for research · Also available as an e-book with functionality, navigation features, and links that offer extra learning supportNew to this edition:· Discussion of NHS organizational reforms under the Health and Care Act 2022. · Coverage of significant new negligence cases, including Paul v Wolverhampton NHS Trust (secondary victims/psychiatric injury) and McCulloch v Forth Valley Health Board (informed consent).· A new section on Public Inquiries as a response to systemic healthcare failings.· Coverage of the changes to be implemented by the Mental Health Act 2025.· A new section in the confidentiality and data chapter on the tort of Misuse of Private Information.· A significantly revised chapter on emerging technologies, including coverage of organoids/embryo models, as well as new material on the implications of AI for healthcare.· Coverage of developments in relation to abortion, including decriminalization for women and new 'buffer zone' legislation.· An explanation of the implications of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.Digital formats and resources The 7th edition is available for students and institutions to purchase in a variety of formats: the e-book and Law Trove offer a mobile experience and convenient functionality tools, navigation features and links that offer extra learning support.For more information about e-books, please visit www.oxfordtextbooks.co.uk/ebooks

This book draws on the disciplines of law, philosophy, and psychiatry to interrogate whether the Mental Capacity Act 2005 meets the challenges posed by mental disorder to decision-making. It is often assumed that to allow space for individuality, any test for capacity must focus only on decision-making processes and not on the substance of the values that underpin decisions. Auckland challenges this assumption, arguing that the current law serves merely as a façade, behind which judgements can be made about the nature of a person's values, free from proper scrutiny. This book provides an in-depth analysis of when and how a person's disordered values should be relevant to the determination of their capacity, offering novel suggestions for reforming the capacity test to better reflect the impact of disorder on decision-making. It also explores the implications of this analysis for people found to lack capacity, concluding that reforms to the best interest provisions are urgently needed. This title is part of the Flip it Open Programme and may also be available Open Access. Check our website Cambridge Core for details.

This book draws on the disciplines of law, philosophy, and psychiatry to interrogate whether the Mental Capacity Act 2005 meets the challenges posed by mental disorder to decision-making. It is often assumed that to allow space for individuality, any test for capacity must focus only on decision-making processes and not on the substance of the values that underpin decisions. Auckland challenges this assumption, arguing that the current law serves merely as a façade, behind which judgements can be made about the nature of a person's values, free from proper scrutiny. This book provides an in-depth analysis of when and how a person's disordered values should be relevant to the determination of their capacity, offering novel suggestions for reforming the capacity test to better reflect the impact of disorder on decision-making. It also explores the implications of this analysis for people found to lack capacity, concluding that reforms to the best interest provisions are urgently needed. This title is part of the Flip it Open Programme and may also be available Open Access. Check our website Cambridge Core for details.

This timely collection brings together philosophical, legal and sociological perspectives on the crucial question of who should make decisions about the fate of a child suffering from a serious illness. In particular, the collection looks at whether the current ‘best interests’ threshold is the appropriate boundary for legal intervention, or whether it would be more appropriate to adopt the ‘risk of significant harm’ approach proposed in Gard. It explores the roles of parents, doctors and the courts in making decisions on behalf of children, actively drawing on perspectives from the clinic as well as academia and practice. In doing so, it teases out the potential risks of inappropriate state intrusion in parental decision-making, and considers how we might address them.

This timely collection brings together philosophical, legal and sociological perspectives on the crucial question of who should make decisions about the fate of a child suffering from a serious illness. In particular, the collection looks at whether the current ''best interests'' threshold is the appropriate boundary for legal intervention, or whether it would be more appropriate to adopt the ''risk of significant harm'' approach proposed in Gard. It explores the roles of parents, doctors and the courts in making decisions on behalf of children, actively drawing on perspectives from the clinic as well as academia and practice. In doing so, it teases out the potential risks of inappropriate state intrusion in parental decision-making, and considers how we might address them.

This timely collection brings together philosophical, legal and sociological perspectives on the crucial question of who should make decisions about the fate of a child suffering from a serious illness. In particular, the collection looks at whether the current ''best interests'' threshold is the appropriate boundary for legal intervention, or whether it would be more appropriate to adopt the ''risk of significant harm'' approach proposed in Gard. It explores the roles of parents, doctors and the courts in making decisions on behalf of children, actively drawing on perspectives from the clinic as well as academia and practice. In doing so, it teases out the potential risks of inappropriate state intrusion in parental decision-making, and considers how we might address them.

In the wake of the Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans cases, a wide-ranging international conversation was started regarding alternative thresholds for intervention and the different balances that can be made in weighing up the rights and interests of the child, the parent’s rights and responsibilities and the role of medical professionals and the courts. This collection provides a comparative perspective on these issues by bringing together analysis from a range of jurisdictions across Europe, North and South America, Africa and Asia. Contextualising the differences and similarities, and drawing out the cultural and social values that inform the approach in different countries, this volume is highly valuable to scholars across jurisdictions, not only to inform their own local debate on how best to navigate such cases, but also to foster inter-jurisdictional debate on the issues. The book brings together commentators from the fields of law, medical ethics, and clinical medicine across the world, actively drawing on the view from the clinic as well as philosophical, legal and sociological perspectives on the crucial question of who should decide about the fate of a child suffering from a serious illness. In doing so, the collection offers comprehensive treatment of the key questions around whether the current best interests approach is still appropriate, and if not, what the alternatives are. It engages head-on with the concerns seen in both the academic and popular literature that there is a need to reconsider the orthodoxy in this area.

In the wake of the Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans cases, a wide-ranging international conversation was started regarding alternative thresholds for intervention and the different balances that can be made in weighing up the rights and interests of the child, the parent''s rights and responsibilities and the role of medical professionals and the courts. This collection provides a comparative perspective on these issues by bringing together analysis from a range of jurisdictions across Europe, North and South America, Africa and Asia. Contextualising the differences and similarities, and drawing out the cultural and social values that inform the approach in different countries, this volume is highly valuable to scholars across jurisdictions, not only to inform their own local debate on how best to navigate such cases, but also to foster inter-jurisdictional debate on the issues. The book brings together commentators from the fields of law, medical ethics, and clinical medicine across the world, actively drawing on the view from the clinic as well as philosophical, legal and sociological perspectives on the crucial question of who should decide about the fate of a child suffering from a serious illness. In doing so, the collection offers comprehensive treatment of the key questions around whether the current best interests approach is still appropriate, and if not, what the alternatives are. It engages head-on with the concerns seen in both the academic and popular literature that there is a need to reconsider the orthodoxy in this area.

In the wake of the Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans cases, a wide-ranging international conversation was started regarding alternative thresholds for intervention and the different balances that can be made in weighing up the rights and interests of the child, the parent''s rights and responsibilities and the role of medical professionals and the courts. This collection provides a comparative perspective on these issues by bringing together analysis from a range of jurisdictions across Europe, North and South America, Africa and Asia. Contextualising the differences and similarities, and drawing out the cultural and social values that inform the approach in different countries, this volume is highly valuable to scholars across jurisdictions, not only to inform their own local debate on how best to navigate such cases, but also to foster inter-jurisdictional debate on the issues. The book brings together commentators from the fields of law, medical ethics, and clinical medicine across the world, actively drawing on the view from the clinic as well as philosophical, legal and sociological perspectives on the crucial question of who should decide about the fate of a child suffering from a serious illness. In doing so, the collection offers comprehensive treatment of the key questions around whether the current best interests approach is still appropriate, and if not, what the alternatives are. It engages head-on with the concerns seen in both the academic and popular literature that there is a need to reconsider the orthodoxy in this area.

In the wake of the Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans cases, a wide-ranging international conversation was started regarding alternative thresholds for intervention and the different balances that can be made in weighing up the rights and interests of the child, the parent’s rights and responsibilities and the role of medical professionals and the courts. This collection provides a comparative perspective on these issues by bringing together analysis from a range of jurisdictions across Europe, North and South America, Africa and Asia. Contextualising the differences and similarities, and drawing out the cultural and social values that inform the approach in different countries, this volume is highly valuable to scholars across jurisdictions, not only to inform their own local debate on how best to navigate such cases, but also to foster inter-jurisdictional debate on the issues. The book brings together commentators from the fields of law, medical ethics, and clinical medicine across the world, actively drawing on the view from the clinic as well as philosophical, legal and sociological perspectives on the crucial question of who should decide about the fate of a child suffering from a serious illness. In doing so, the collection offers comprehensive treatment of the key questions around whether the current best interests approach is still appropriate, and if not, what the alternatives are. It engages head-on with the concerns seen in both the academic and popular literature that there is a need to reconsider the orthodoxy in this area.