英国下放卫生政策和法律制定中的联系-摩擦轴:器官捐赠案例研究

IF 1.5 4区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Ruby Reed‐Berendt, Anne‐Maree Farrell, Matthew Watkins, John Harrington
{"title":"英国下放卫生政策和法律制定中的联系-摩擦轴:器官捐赠案例研究","authors":"Ruby Reed‐Berendt, Anne‐Maree Farrell, Matthew Watkins, John Harrington","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12900","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the dynamics of devolved health policy and law‐making in the UK, drawing on a case study of opt‐out organ donation reform. Given that health is a significant area of devolved competence, such case studies offer the opportunity to examine both similarities and differences in approach between the four nations in the context of the UK's evolving constitutional settlement. We argue that there is a need to move away from the characterisation of the devolved health policy‐making process as being grounded in a convergence‐divergence approach, towards one that recognises the connection‐friction axis around which this process takes place. To explore this, we present findings from empirical research on opt‐out organ donation law reform. This, we suggest, demonstrates that whilst connectedness between government stakeholders, experts and advocacy groups was clearly vital in structuring the policy process, account should also be taken of how law operates not only as a medium for the playing out of political and ideological friction, but also for the achievement of connection to overcome this.","PeriodicalId":47530,"journal":{"name":"Modern Law Review","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Connection‐Friction Axis in Devolved Health Policy and Law‐Making in the UK: A Case Study of Organ Donation\",\"authors\":\"Ruby Reed‐Berendt, Anne‐Maree Farrell, Matthew Watkins, John Harrington\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1468-2230.12900\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article explores the dynamics of devolved health policy and law‐making in the UK, drawing on a case study of opt‐out organ donation reform. Given that health is a significant area of devolved competence, such case studies offer the opportunity to examine both similarities and differences in approach between the four nations in the context of the UK's evolving constitutional settlement. We argue that there is a need to move away from the characterisation of the devolved health policy‐making process as being grounded in a convergence‐divergence approach, towards one that recognises the connection‐friction axis around which this process takes place. To explore this, we present findings from empirical research on opt‐out organ donation law reform. This, we suggest, demonstrates that whilst connectedness between government stakeholders, experts and advocacy groups was clearly vital in structuring the policy process, account should also be taken of how law operates not only as a medium for the playing out of political and ideological friction, but also for the achievement of connection to overcome this.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47530,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Modern Law Review\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Modern Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12900\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Modern Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12900","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文通过对选择性器官捐献改革的案例研究,探讨了英国权力下放的卫生政策和法律制定的动态。鉴于卫生是权力下放的一个重要领域,此类案例研究提供了一个机会,在英国不断演变的宪法解决方案背景下审视四个国家在方法上的异同。我们认为,有必要摆脱将下放的卫生政策制定过程定性为基于趋同-分歧的方法,转而认识到这一过程所围绕的联系-摩擦轴心。为了探讨这一问题,我们介绍了关于选择性器官捐献法律改革的实证研究结果。我们认为,这表明,虽然政府利益相关者、专家和倡导团体之间的联系在构建政策过程中显然至关重要,但也应考虑到法律如何不仅作为政治和意识形态摩擦的媒介,而且也作为实现联系以克服摩擦的媒介。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Connection‐Friction Axis in Devolved Health Policy and Law‐Making in the UK: A Case Study of Organ Donation
This article explores the dynamics of devolved health policy and law‐making in the UK, drawing on a case study of opt‐out organ donation reform. Given that health is a significant area of devolved competence, such case studies offer the opportunity to examine both similarities and differences in approach between the four nations in the context of the UK's evolving constitutional settlement. We argue that there is a need to move away from the characterisation of the devolved health policy‐making process as being grounded in a convergence‐divergence approach, towards one that recognises the connection‐friction axis around which this process takes place. To explore this, we present findings from empirical research on opt‐out organ donation law reform. This, we suggest, demonstrates that whilst connectedness between government stakeholders, experts and advocacy groups was clearly vital in structuring the policy process, account should also be taken of how law operates not only as a medium for the playing out of political and ideological friction, but also for the achievement of connection to overcome this.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
61
×
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