The historical development of health care law and bioethics in England and Wales: a symbiotic relationship?

IF 0.1 Q4 LAW
MEDICINE AND LAW Pub Date : 2014-04-01
Ernest Owusu-Dapaa
{"title":"The historical development of health care law and bioethics in England and Wales: a symbiotic relationship?","authors":"Ernest Owusu-Dapaa","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The paper explores the backward and forward linkage between HCL and bioethics. Indeed, the relationship between the two is so close that it can be considered one of symbiosis. This is particularly the case when an account is taken of how HCL and bioethics positively benefitted from each other in diverse ways during their development into their present status as discrete disciplines. In the first place, the aftermath of the Second World War, such as the Nuremberg trial and unprecedented medical experiment scandals in the 1960s/70s fuelled the increasing participation of lay scholars in exploring and critiquing medical ethics which culminated in the emergence ofbioethics.2 This in turn facilitated the evolution of HCL as a discipline, since academic lawyers involved in early bioethical discourse developed interest in exploring the interface between law and bioethics at the same time that society was waking up to the ethical implications of medical advances. As HCL emerged as a discrete discipline, it consolidated the status of bioethics as a field of inquiry by projecting the relevance of the latter in adjudication of novel cases with significant slippery moral undertones. Thus, the chicken and egg paradox finds a perfect reflection in the emergence of health care law and bioethics in England and Wales.</p>","PeriodicalId":54182,"journal":{"name":"MEDICINE AND LAW","volume":"33 1","pages":"22-39"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2014-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MEDICINE AND LAW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The paper explores the backward and forward linkage between HCL and bioethics. Indeed, the relationship between the two is so close that it can be considered one of symbiosis. This is particularly the case when an account is taken of how HCL and bioethics positively benefitted from each other in diverse ways during their development into their present status as discrete disciplines. In the first place, the aftermath of the Second World War, such as the Nuremberg trial and unprecedented medical experiment scandals in the 1960s/70s fuelled the increasing participation of lay scholars in exploring and critiquing medical ethics which culminated in the emergence ofbioethics.2 This in turn facilitated the evolution of HCL as a discipline, since academic lawyers involved in early bioethical discourse developed interest in exploring the interface between law and bioethics at the same time that society was waking up to the ethical implications of medical advances. As HCL emerged as a discrete discipline, it consolidated the status of bioethics as a field of inquiry by projecting the relevance of the latter in adjudication of novel cases with significant slippery moral undertones. Thus, the chicken and egg paradox finds a perfect reflection in the emergence of health care law and bioethics in England and Wales.

英格兰和威尔士医疗保健法和生命伦理学的历史发展:一种共生关系?
本文探讨了HCL与生命伦理学之间的前后联系。事实上,两者之间的关系非常密切,可以被认为是一种共生关系。当考虑到HCL和生物伦理学在发展成为目前独立学科的过程中如何以各种方式相互积极受益时,情况尤其如此。首先,第二次世界大战的后果,如纽伦堡审判和20世纪60年代/70年代前所未有的医学实验丑闻,促使外行学者越来越多地参与探索和批评医学伦理学,最终导致了生物伦理学的出现这反过来又促进了HCL作为一门学科的发展,因为参与早期生物伦理学论述的学术律师对探索法律与生物伦理学之间的界面产生了兴趣,同时社会也开始意识到医学进步的伦理影响。当HCL作为一门独立的学科出现时,它巩固了生物伦理学作为一个研究领域的地位,通过预测后者在具有重大狡猾道德含义的新案件裁决中的相关性。因此,鸡和蛋悖论在英格兰和威尔士的医疗保健法和生物伦理学的出现中得到了完美的反映。
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
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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