One recurring criticism of the best interests standard concerns its vagueness, and thus the inadequate guidance it offers to care providers. The lack of an agreed definition of ‘best interests’, together with the fact that several suggested considerations adopted in legislation or professional guidelines for doctors do not obviously apply across different groups of persons, result in decisions being made in murky waters. In response, bioethicists have attempted to specify the best interests standard, to reduce the indeterminacy surrounding medical decisions. (...) In this paper, we discuss the bioethicists’ response in relation to the state's possible role in clarifying the best interests standard. We identify and characterise two clarificatory strategies employed by bioethicists —elaborative and enumerative—and argue that the state should adopt the latter. Beyond the practical difficulties of the former strategy, a state adoption of it would inevitably be prejudicial in a pluralistic society. Given the gravity of best interests decisions, and the delicate task of respecting citizens with different understandings of best interests, only the enumerative strategy is viable. We argue that this does not commit the state to silence in providing guidance to and supporting healthcare providers, nor does it facilitate the abuse of the vulnerable. Finally, we address two methodological worries about adopting this approach at the state level. The adoption of the enumerative strategy is not defeatist in attitude, nor does it eventually collapse into (a form of) the elaborative strategy. (shrink)

This paper is a response to a paper by John Coggon ‘Best Interests, Public Interest, and the Power of the Medical Profession'. It argues that certain legal judgements in relation to best interests seek to change and curtail the role of the medical profession in this arena while simultaneously extending the jurisdiction of the courts. It also argues that we must guard against replacing one professional standard, that of the medical profession, with another, that of the judiciary in this area.

Sufficientarians face a problem of arbitrariness: why place a sufficiency threshold at any particular point? One response is to seek universal goods to justify a threshold. However, this faces difficulties (despite sincere efforts) by either being too low, or failing to accommodate individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Some sufficientarians have appealed to individuals’ subjective evaluations of their lives. I build on this idea, considering another individualized threshold: ‘tolerability’. I respond to some traditional challenges to individualistic approaches to justice: ‘expensive’ tastes, (...) and adaptive preferences. Finally, I end by offering some suggestions about how this relates to policymaking. (shrink)

This paper provides a reflective analysis of the nature of normative critiques of law generally, and within medical law specifically. It first seeks to establish the context within which critical analysis of law and legal measures takes place, and develops an argument that critiques should focus on political norms. Entailed in this claim is the contention that positions that seek to address controversial social problems can not resort simply to moral philosophy. It then provides a brief account of political liberalism (...) that can contain and expose normative constraints on questions of moral and social contention. The focus then moves to a more direct reflection on medico-legal analysis. Considering both medical law as a discipline, and the study of end-of-life issues, the argument highlights the range of relevant issues that must be accounted for, and addresses the question of whether these are well conceived as ones of medical law. It is argued that a political framing offers a good general analytic context, but that when working in legal sub-disciplines analysts risk allowing 'locally' pertinent norms to dominate or unduly constrain wider debate. Thus it is questioned whether 'medical law' provides a coherent frame for social questions related to assisted-dying. (shrink)