Being Ms B: B, autonomy and the nature of legal regulation.

IF 0.7 Q2 LAW
SYDNEY LAW REVIEW Pub Date : 2004-03-01
Derek Morgan, Kenneth Veitch
{"title":"Being Ms B: B, autonomy and the nature of legal regulation.","authors":"Derek Morgan,&nbsp;Kenneth Veitch","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this article, we question the apparent simplicity of medical law's construction of 'life and death' cases as a clash between the sanctity of life principle and patient autonomy. Our main purpose in doing so is to try to understand more fully the nature of law's regulation of the existence and non-existence of life. Specifically, we argue that, by broadening the understanding of autonomy in this area beyond a simple concern for patients' rights and self-determination, to include a focus on the individual generally, it becomes possible to identify some of the legal practices that are central to the manner in which law regulates the threshold between life and death. Through an analysis of a recent case in English law--Re B (an adult: refusal of medical treatment)--(although Australian jurisdictions presently disclose no similar, authoritative case, ours presently is almost an arbitrary choice)--we demonstrate the central role played in this regulation by tests for mental capacity, questions of character, explanation, and imagination. We conclude that medical law, at least in this context, can be theorised as a normalising practice--one in which the determination of norms often occurs through patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":45086,"journal":{"name":"SYDNEY LAW REVIEW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2004-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SYDNEY LAW REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this article, we question the apparent simplicity of medical law's construction of 'life and death' cases as a clash between the sanctity of life principle and patient autonomy. Our main purpose in doing so is to try to understand more fully the nature of law's regulation of the existence and non-existence of life. Specifically, we argue that, by broadening the understanding of autonomy in this area beyond a simple concern for patients' rights and self-determination, to include a focus on the individual generally, it becomes possible to identify some of the legal practices that are central to the manner in which law regulates the threshold between life and death. Through an analysis of a recent case in English law--Re B (an adult: refusal of medical treatment)--(although Australian jurisdictions presently disclose no similar, authoritative case, ours presently is almost an arbitrary choice)--we demonstrate the central role played in this regulation by tests for mental capacity, questions of character, explanation, and imagination. We conclude that medical law, at least in this context, can be theorised as a normalising practice--one in which the determination of norms often occurs through patients.

作为B女士:B,自治和法律监管的性质。
在这篇文章中,我们质疑医疗法对“生死”案件的简单建构,认为这是生命神圣原则与患者自主权之间的冲突。我们这样做的主要目的是试图更全面地理解法律对生命存在和不存在的规定的本质。具体而言,我们认为,通过扩大对这一领域的自主权的理解,使其超越对患者权利和自决的简单关注,而包括对一般个人的关注,就有可能确定一些法律实践,这些实践对法律规定生与死之间界限的方式至关重要。通过对英国法律中最近的一个案例的分析——Re B(一个成年人:拒绝医疗)——(尽管澳大利亚司法管辖区目前没有披露类似的权威案例,但我们目前几乎是一个武断的选择)——我们通过对心理能力、性格、解释和想象力问题的测试,证明了在这一规则中发挥的核心作用。我们的结论是,至少在这种情况下,医学法律可以被理论化为一种正常化的实践——在这种实践中,规范的确定往往是通过患者来实现的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信