Imogen Goold – författare

This textbook is an ambitious and engaging introduction to the more advanced writings on medical law and ethics, primarily designed to allow students to ‘get under the skin’ of the topic and begin to build their critical thinking and analysis skills. Each chapter is structured around key questions and debates that provoke deeper thought and, ultimately, a clearer understanding. The aim of the book is not to present a complete overview of theoretical issues in medical law and ethics, but rather to illustrate the current debates which are currently going on among those working in and shaping the area. The text features summaries of the views of notable experts on key topics and each chapter ends with a list of guided further reading.A perfect book for students taking a module in medical law, or for those wanting to deepen their knowledge.New to this Edition:- The Supreme Court decision in Montgomery receives extensive discussion and analysis- Recent developments on the best interests test under the Mental Capacity Act are explored- The latest case law on end of life decision making is set out- Debates over whether abortion should be decriminalised are examined- The Charlie Gard case is considered

This textbook is an ambitious and engaging introduction to the more advanced writings on medical law and ethics, primarily designed to allow students to ''get under the skin'' of the topic and begin to build their critical thinking and analysis skills. Each chapter is structured around key questions and debates that provoke deeper thought and, ultimately, a clearer understanding. The aim of the book is not to present a complete overview of theoretical issues in medical law and ethics, but rather to illustrate the current debates which are currently going on among those working in and shaping the area. The text features summaries of the views of notable experts on key topics and each chapter ends with a list of guided further reading.A perfect book for students taking a module in medical law, or for those wanting to deepen their knowledge.New to this Edition:- The Supreme Court decision in Montgomery receives extensive discussion and analysis- Recent developments on the best interests test under the Mental Capacity Act are explored- The latest case law on end of life decision making is set out- Debates over whether abortion should be decriminalised are examined- The Charlie Gard case is considered

The debate over whether human bodies and their parts should be governed by the laws of property has accelerated with the pace of technological change. Having long held that a corpse could not be property, the common law first recognised that there could be a property interest in human tissue in some circumstances in the early 1900s, but it was not until a string of judicial decisions and statutory regulation in the 1990s and early 2000s that the place of this ‘exception’ was cemented. The 2009 decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in Yearworth & Ors v North Bristol NHS Trust added a new dimension to the debate by supporting a move towards a broader, more principled basis for finding (or rejecting) property rights in human tissue. However, the law relating to property rights in human bodies and their parts remains highly contested. The contributions in this volume represent a collation of the broad spectrum of analyses on offer, and provide a detailed exploration of the salient legal and theoretical puzzles arising out of the body-as-property question.

Who is best placed in medical decision-making, to decide: the patient or the doctor? In this important new volume in the Debating Law series, Imogen Goold argues that the law should strongly support individual choice and autonomy. Medical decisions, she argues, are deeply personal, with life-changing consequences, and it must be for the patient to make them. Even in the event of those decisions ultimately harming the patient, fully informed, autonomous decisions by the patient must be supported by the law. Jonathan Herring counters, arguing that placing the an overriding emphasis on personal autonomy does not always achieve the best outcome for the patient. He argues instead that in certain circumstances, best interest considerations must take precedence over autonomous decision-making. He suggests that the law does not support autonomy as is commonly claimed, but instead takes a much more nuanced approach, balancing the principle of autonomy against other principles and considerations. This is a fascinating addition to this compelling series which grapples with the most pressing issues facing lawyers today.

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.

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 textbook is an ambitious and engaging introduction to the more advanced writings on medical law and ethics, primarily designed to allow students to ''get under the skin'' of the topic and begin to build their critical thinking and analysis skills. Each chapter is structured around key questions and debates that provoke deeper thought and, ultimately, a clearer understanding. The aim of the book is not to present a complete overview of theoretical issues in medical law and ethics, but rather to illustrate the current debates which are currently going on among those working in and shaping the area. The text features summaries of the views of notable experts on key topics and each chapter ends with a list of guided further reading.A perfect book for students taking a module in medical law, or for those wanting to deepen their knowledge.New to this Edition:- The Supreme Court decision in Montgomery receives extensive discussion and analysis- Recent developments on the best interests test under the Mental Capacity Act are explored- The latest case law on end of life decision making is set out- Debates over whether abortion should be decriminalised are examined- The Charlie Gard case is considered

The debate over whether human bodies and their parts should be governed by the laws of property has accelerated with the pace of technological change. Having long held that a corpse could not be property, the common law first recognised that there could be a property interest in human tissue in some circumstances in the early 1900s, but it was not until a string of judicial decisions and statutory regulation in the 1990s and early 2000s that the place of this ''exception'' was cemented. The 2009 decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in Yearworth & Ors v North Bristol NHS Trust added a new dimension to the debate by supporting a move towards a broader, more principled basis for finding (or rejecting) property rights in human tissue. However, the law relating to property rights in human bodies and their parts remains highly contested. The contributions in this volume represent a collation of the broad spectrum of analyses on offer, and provide a detailed exploration of the salient legal and theoretical puzzles arising out of the body-as-property question.

The debate over whether human bodies and their parts should be governed by the laws of property has accelerated with the pace of technological change. Having long held that a corpse could not be property, the common law first recognised that there could be a property interest in human tissue in some circumstances in the early 1900s, but it was not until a string of judicial decisions and statutory regulation in the 1990s and early 2000s that the place of this ''exception'' was cemented. The 2009 decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in Yearworth & Ors v North Bristol NHS Trust added a new dimension to the debate by supporting a move towards a broader, more principled basis for finding (or rejecting) property rights in human tissue. However, the law relating to property rights in human bodies and their parts remains highly contested. The contributions in this volume represent a collation of the broad spectrum of analyses on offer, and provide a detailed exploration of the salient legal and theoretical puzzles arising out of the body-as-property question.

This book investigates how the the requirements, limitations and intellectual structure of the British legal process have shaped medicine and medical practice. The story of this inter-relationship is greatly under-researched, which is particularly concerning given that the legal system remains a significant and pervasive influence on medicine and its practice to this day. The question which unifies the series of historical studies presented here is whether legal consideration of medical practice and concepts has played a part in the construction of medical concepts and affected developments in medical practice - in other words how the external, legal gaze has shaped the way medicine itself conceptualises some of its practices and classifications. The majority of the chapters consider this question in the context of the development and application of legislation, but the influence of court processes is also considered. Other themes which emerge from the book include the nature and exclusivity of medical expertise, the impact of public opinion on the development of medical legislation, and the difficulty the legal system has faced in dealing with new medical developments.The chapters are arranged chronologically, with an introduction drawing out themes that emerge from the chapters as a whole.

This book investigates how the requirements, limitations and intellectual structure of the British legal process have shaped medicine and medical practice. The story of this inter-relationship is greatly under-researched, which is particularly concerning given that the legal system remains a significant and pervasive influence on medicine and its practice to this day. The question which unifies the series of historical studies presented here is whether legal consideration of medical practice and concepts has played a part in the construction of medical concepts and affected developments in medical practice - in other words how the external, legal gaze has shaped the way medicine itself conceptualises some of its practices and classifications. The majority of the chapters consider this question in the context of the development and application of legislation, but the influence of court processes is also considered. Other themes which emerge from the book include the nature and exclusivity of medical expertise, the impact of public opinion on the development of medical legislation, and the difficulty the legal system has faced in dealing with new medical developments. The chapters are arranged chronologically, with an introduction drawing out themes that emerge from the chapters as a whole.