质疑先例自治的限制:从预先决定的范围反常地排除基本照顾。

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q1 LAW
Samantha Halliday, Jean V McHale
{"title":"质疑先例自治的限制:从预先决定的范围反常地排除基本照顾。","authors":"Samantha Halliday, Jean V McHale","doi":"10.1093/medlaw/fwaf030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Mental Capacity Act 2005 enables individuals to make advance decisions to refuse medical treatment once they lose mental capacity. However, scant attention has been given to the limit imposed by the Code of Practice upon the ability of an individual to refuse care, as opposed to treatment in an advance decision. This article examines the different meanings of 'basic care'. It interrogates the genesis of the exclusion within the Code of Practice. The article examines the problems created by the exclusion, both in definitional terms and in relation to the conflict created with respect for precedent autonomy. It argues that while such an exclusion could be justified on the basis of public policy at the turn of the 21st century, the evolution of greater respect for patient-centred decision-making and respect for human dignity require its re-evaluation. The article challenges the continued relevance of the exception in the light of shifts in public policy and the case law, proposing that the ability to make an advance decision about basic care as well as treatment is an essential element in the toolkit designed to ensure individualized care at the end of life.</p>","PeriodicalId":49146,"journal":{"name":"Medical Law Review","volume":"33 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12401574/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interrogating the limits of precedent autonomy: the anomalous exclusion of basic care from the ambit of advance decisions.\",\"authors\":\"Samantha Halliday, Jean V McHale\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/medlaw/fwaf030\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The Mental Capacity Act 2005 enables individuals to make advance decisions to refuse medical treatment once they lose mental capacity. However, scant attention has been given to the limit imposed by the Code of Practice upon the ability of an individual to refuse care, as opposed to treatment in an advance decision. This article examines the different meanings of 'basic care'. It interrogates the genesis of the exclusion within the Code of Practice. The article examines the problems created by the exclusion, both in definitional terms and in relation to the conflict created with respect for precedent autonomy. It argues that while such an exclusion could be justified on the basis of public policy at the turn of the 21st century, the evolution of greater respect for patient-centred decision-making and respect for human dignity require its re-evaluation. The article challenges the continued relevance of the exception in the light of shifts in public policy and the case law, proposing that the ability to make an advance decision about basic care as well as treatment is an essential element in the toolkit designed to ensure individualized care at the end of life.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49146,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Law Review\",\"volume\":\"33 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12401574/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwaf030\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwaf030","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

《2005年精神能力法》规定,一旦丧失精神能力,个人可以提前决定拒绝接受治疗。但是,很少注意到《业务守则》对个人拒绝接受治疗的能力所施加的限制,而不是预先决定接受治疗的能力。本文探讨了“基本护理”的不同含义。它询问了《业务守则》中排除的起源。本文从定义和尊重先例自治所产生的冲突两方面考察了这种排除所造成的问题。报告认为,虽然这种排除在21世纪之交的公共政策基础上是合理的,但对以病人为中心的决策和对人的尊严的更大尊重的演变需要对其进行重新评估。鉴于公共政策和判例法的变化,这篇文章对例外的持续相关性提出了挑战,提出了对基本护理和治疗做出预先决定的能力,是旨在确保生命结束时个性化护理的工具包中的基本要素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Interrogating the limits of precedent autonomy: the anomalous exclusion of basic care from the ambit of advance decisions.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 enables individuals to make advance decisions to refuse medical treatment once they lose mental capacity. However, scant attention has been given to the limit imposed by the Code of Practice upon the ability of an individual to refuse care, as opposed to treatment in an advance decision. This article examines the different meanings of 'basic care'. It interrogates the genesis of the exclusion within the Code of Practice. The article examines the problems created by the exclusion, both in definitional terms and in relation to the conflict created with respect for precedent autonomy. It argues that while such an exclusion could be justified on the basis of public policy at the turn of the 21st century, the evolution of greater respect for patient-centred decision-making and respect for human dignity require its re-evaluation. The article challenges the continued relevance of the exception in the light of shifts in public policy and the case law, proposing that the ability to make an advance decision about basic care as well as treatment is an essential element in the toolkit designed to ensure individualized care at the end of life.

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
Medical Law Review
Medical Law Review MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
11.80%
发文量
50
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Medical Law Review is established as an authoritative source of reference for academics, lawyers, legal and medical practitioners, law students, and anyone interested in healthcare and the law. The journal presents articles of international interest which provide thorough analyses and comment on the wide range of topical issues that are fundamental to this expanding area of law. In addition, commentary sections provide in depth explorations of topical aspects of the field.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信