Fae Garland, Edmund Horowicz, Georgina Dimopoulos, Michelle M Taylor-Sands
{"title":"From clinical to judicial decision-making, and back again in Bell v. Tavistock? Preparing for the legacy of court involvement in gender care for minors","authors":"Fae Garland, Edmund Horowicz, Georgina Dimopoulos, Michelle M Taylor-Sands","doi":"10.1177/09685332231180037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09685332231180037","url":null,"abstract":"Gender care for minors in England has recently been scrutinised by the courts and is currently undergoing significant transformation, shifting away from the long-standing centralised service provision model. Alongside this change, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health has recently published Version 8 of its Standard of Care, which introduces radical changes that shift away from age restrictions on medical interventions. This article considers what role judicial decision-making could, or should, play in this new era of healthcare provision for adolescent gender care, especially since Bell v. Tavistock. Despite Bell seemingly returning decision-making to clinicians, patients, and their families, we argue that the decision has left the door open in a way that threatens the autonomy and rights of gender diverse children. Through a comparative analysis with Australian case law, we demonstrate how and why uncertainties left by Bell may in fact lead to continued court involvement. Finally, we suggest several pragmatic responses that may mitigate the risk of unnecessary and time-consuming court involvement.","PeriodicalId":39602,"journal":{"name":"Medical Law International","volume":"23 1","pages":"209 - 240"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45902105","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Medicine, patients and the law","authors":"Alex Ruck Keene, E. Cave, Rob Heywood","doi":"10.7765/9781526157188","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526157188","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39602,"journal":{"name":"Medical Law International","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139370777","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"(How) is COVID-19 reframing interaction between the NHS and private healthcare?","authors":"Mary Guy","doi":"10.1177/09685332231159362","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09685332231159362","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In March 2020 a 'major deal' was struck between the National Health Service (NHS) and private healthcare sector to facilitate 'crisis' and 'continuity' responses to COVID-19. A further deal was struck in January 2022 to support the NHS in tackling the Omicron variant, suggesting that the pandemic was evolving, rather than definitively over. The legal basis for these deals was a Public Policy Exclusion Order, a temporary relaxation mechanism in UK competition law defined by a 'disruption period'. In a global pandemic, the 'healthcare disruption period' might be considered to be of a different scope and nature to short-term disturbances experienced in other sectors, such as groceries. This article examines the Public Policy Exclusion Orders issued in respect of health services in England and Wales, and the Collective Agreements notified under these between March 2020 and March 2021, and again in March 2022. Amid ongoing tensions surrounding 'NHS privatisation', this enables a timely analysis of whether the underlying relationship between the NHS and private healthcare may be changing in response to COVID-19, and how considerations of ethical frameworks are also relevant to this aspect of the pandemic response.</p>","PeriodicalId":39602,"journal":{"name":"Medical Law International","volume":"23 1","pages":"138-158"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10015276/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45271814","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The right to life at the end of life: A note on <i>Mortier v Belgium</i> App No. 78017/17, 4 October 2022","authors":"Stevie Martin","doi":"10.1177/09685332231172755","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09685332231172755","url":null,"abstract":"The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Mortier v Belgium, delivered in October 2022, is the first time the Court has squarely confronted the issue of whether permitting assisted dying is compatible with a state’s obligation to protect life under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case, brought by the son of a woman who had been euthanised, was based predominantly on the argument that the Belgian system of assisted dying failed to adequately protect the lives of vulnerable individuals, such as the applicant’s mother. A majority of the Court held that a permissive assisted dying regime could comply with the positive obligation to protect under Article 2, provided there are safeguards in place including a system capable of ensuring that an individual’s request for assistance is freely made and informed, as well as a posteriori control in the form of supervision of compliance with the legislative and regulatory safeguards. While there were deficiencies in the Belgian system’s a posteriori control which led to a finding of a violation of Article 2, the judgment clearly demonstrates that states can permit assisted dying without violating their protective obligations under Article 2. Significantly, the Court did not consider that permitting assisted dying for individuals whose suffering emanates from a non-terminal condition (including a mental illness) was problematic from a Convention perspective. The judgment is likely to be of considerable interest to policy makers, legislators, medical practitioners, and campaigners in the increasing number of jurisdictions both within the Council of Europe and beyond, that are considering whether to legalise assisted dying and, if so, the parameters of such a regime.","PeriodicalId":39602,"journal":{"name":"Medical Law International","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134988450","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The right to life at the end of life: A note on Mortier v Belgium App No. 78017/17, 4 October 2022","authors":"Stevie Martin","doi":"10.5040/9781472564009.ch-011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472564009.ch-011","url":null,"abstract":"The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Mortier v Belgium, delivered in October 2022, is the first time the Court has squarely confronted the issue of whether permitting assisted dying is compatible with a state’s obligation to protect life under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case, brought by the son of a woman who had been euthanised, was based predominantly on the argument that the Belgian system of assisted dying failed to adequately protect the lives of vulnerable individuals, such as the applicant’s mother. A majority of the Court held that a permissive assisted dying regime could comply with the positive obligation to protect under Article 2, provided there are safeguards in place including a system capable of ensuring that an individual’s request for assistance is freely made and informed, as well as a posteriori control in the form of supervision of compliance with the legislative and regulatory safeguards. While there were deficiencies in the Belgian system’s a posteriori control which led to a finding of a violation of Article 2, the judgment clearly demonstrates that states can permit assisted dying without violating their protective obligations under Article 2. Significantly, the Court did not consider that permitting assisted dying for individuals whose suffering emanates from a non-terminal condition (including a mental illness) was problematic from a Convention perspective. The judgment is likely to be of considerable interest to policy makers, legislators, medical practitioners, and campaigners in the increasing number of jurisdictions both within the Council of Europe and beyond, that are considering whether to legalise assisted dying and, if so, the parameters of such a regime.","PeriodicalId":39602,"journal":{"name":"Medical Law International","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45531547","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Book review: Exploring the Spaces of Mental Capacity Law In Conversation with the Author: The Space of Mental Capacity Law: Moving Beyond Binaries","authors":"R. Reed-Berendt, B. Clough","doi":"10.1177/09685332231172331","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09685332231172331","url":null,"abstract":"In England and Wales, the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 provides the legal framework to determine whether an adult lacks capacity to make a decision for themselves, and if they do, what course of action should be taken in accordance with their best interests.1 The MCA purports to empower adults with ‘mental impairments, or disturbances in the functioning of the mind or brain’, to take decisions for themselves, and to protect them where they are unable to do so. Yet, the powers that the Act grants to its decisionmakers are significant, and under the auspices of best interests, individuals deemed to lack capacity may see care arrangements made for them which deprive of them of their liberty, or treatment imposed on them against their wishes. The operation of the MCA has attracted criticism for its failure to recognise the relational nature of human decisionmaking,2 the prevailing dominance of medical decision-makers,3 and its focus on the lives or persons with disabilities. Clough’s book4 adds to this growing body of feminist and disability scholarship by analysing mental capacity law through the lens of assemblages. This focuses on the conceptual spaces and context of mental capacity law, the norms that are created and/or reinforced through it, and the impact on the individuals that capacity law affects. In each chapter, the book calls attention to the binaries which the legislation relies upon and how they are reinforced in its interpretation and application. Clough forcefully argues that","PeriodicalId":39602,"journal":{"name":"Medical Law International","volume":"23 1","pages":"189 - 199"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45521981","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Book review: Consent for Medical Treatment of Trans Youth","authors":"Rita D’Alton-Harrison","doi":"10.1177/09685332231172411","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09685332231172411","url":null,"abstract":"What do we know about trans identity other than how medicalised and politicised it has become? Steph Jowett seeks to debunk the myth that the law is fully conversant with the issues affecting trans youth. As the book demonstrates, even reliance on the prescient nature of medical knowledge does not guarantee that the current legal framework is sufficiently equipped to protect the rights of individuals within this group. Jowett establishes her position at the outset as a supporter of medical treatment for trans youth, describing legal obstacles to medical treatment as contributing to the denial of trans identity. In chapter two of the book, she takes us through the known research in this area and notes that there is a lack of longitudinal research studies that could provide consensus on the current debate about trans rights and whether those rights should be curtailed in any way. Although the book provides us with a useful navigation through the available data and research studies, no firm conclusions can be drawn about the longterm benefits of medical treatment. When reading this chapter, one begins to wonder whether it may be easier to reflect on what we do not know about the experiences and rights of trans youth or to assess what we cannot say with any certainty. For example:","PeriodicalId":39602,"journal":{"name":"Medical Law International","volume":"23 1","pages":"200 - 205"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44513211","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The test of availability of medical treatment","authors":"A. Sarela","doi":"10.1177/09685332231167147","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09685332231167147","url":null,"abstract":"In Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board, the Supreme Court declared that patients are entitled to choose among all available treatments. But, who decides what is ‘available’? Doctors rely upon evidence-based medicine (EBM) – a complex epistemology that generates normative recommendations – for determining treatment availability. EBM is required to be applied through exercise of the treating doctor’s clinical judgement, which inescapably involves some value judgements. EBM attempts to accommodate patient values through shared decision-making (SDM). However, SDM remains contingent upon EBM for its starting points, and this contingency provokes a charge of epistemic injustice because it privileges the treating doctor’s judgement over conflicting views. Such a charge was implicit in Montgomery. The Court responded by adopting a strategy that retains reliance on clinical judgement, yet attempts to restrict the treating doctor’s privilege by admitting other professional views. This strategy permits the induction of a three-step test for availability of treatment, which is theoretically appealing but challenges the practical organisation of the medical profession.","PeriodicalId":39602,"journal":{"name":"Medical Law International","volume":"23 1","pages":"109 - 137"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46135131","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Human rights and foetal impairment grounds for abortion: Crowter v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] EWCA Civ 1559","authors":"Zoe L. Tongue","doi":"10.1177/09685332231167103","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09685332231167103","url":null,"abstract":"This commentary discusses the Court of Appeal’s decision in Crowter v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care handed down on 25 November 2022. The appellants argued that s.1(1)(d) of the Abortion Act 1967, the foetal impairment ground for abortion, was incompatible with Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights for perpetuating discriminatory attitudes towards people with disabilities. The appeal was unsuccessful. In rejecting their argument, the Court of Appeal considered European and international human rights standards on discrimination, and distinguished between the direct and social impacts of discrimination. This commentary will engage with these arguments, and situate the decision within the broader context of recent changes to abortion laws in the United Kingdom and worldwide.","PeriodicalId":39602,"journal":{"name":"Medical Law International","volume":"23 1","pages":"297 - 306"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43726974","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Interoperability and governance in the European Health Data Space regulation","authors":"P. Terzis, (Enrique) OE Santamaria Echeverria","doi":"10.1177/09685332231165692","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09685332231165692","url":null,"abstract":"The proposal for a regulation on the European Health Data Space (EHDS) is a much-awaited project. It aspires to create a harmonised framework – a common European data space – for the administration of health data (primary use) across Member States and the promotion of healthcare research and innovation (by establishing rules for the secondary use of health data). As such, although the EHDS proposal is a legal document, in its essence, it includes provisions that introduce not only legal, but also institutional, and technical-infrastructural changes. Overall, together with the Regulation 2017/745 on medical devices, the Data Governance Act (DGA), the Data Act, the AI Act, and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the EHDS proposal will complete the regulatory canvas for the use of health data in the European Union. Although we are supportive of the EHDS initiative, there are aspects of the proposal that require further debate, reconsideration, and amendments. Following previous work on potential power asymmetries encapsulated in the Proposal, in this commentary, we focus on the provisions of/for interoperability of the Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems (Ar. 14–32) as well as the provisions on the structure of Health Data Access bodies and their cross-border organisation (section 3). We recommend a series of amendments to orientate the EHDS project better to its constitutive goals: the promotion of public health research and respect for the rights of the individuals.","PeriodicalId":39602,"journal":{"name":"Medical Law International","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48909440","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}