Simon Woods proposes that we ought to re-orientate clinical decisions at the end of life back towards the patient, so as to honour his or her account of their “global” interests. Woods condemns the current medico-legal approach for remaining too closely tethered to the views of doctors. In this response, I trace the story of Mrs Kelly Taylor, who sought to be sedated and have life-sustaining treatment withdrawn, and I do so in order to show not only why Woods is (...) right to detect an asymmetry in the law but also why there is more to the legal landscape than first appears. I argue that patient choice is indeed bounded—most obviously by the views of the doctors (and the judges), but no less significantly by so-called “public interest” concerns. Woods’ proposal implicitly, and rightly, forces reconsideration of these public interest dimensions of medico-legal decision-making. This often invisible boundary is not presently granted the attention it deserves (not least by the judges themselves). However, as soon as we delve into the ethical values at stake, then it becomes apparent that there are many more questions to be asked regarding their meaning and interaction before we can determine the appropriate ethical prism through which to view the health care endeavour in English medical law. (shrink)

The concept of responsibility for health is a significant feature of health discourse and public health policy, but application of the concept is poorly understood. This paper offers an analysis of the concept in two ways. Following an examination of the use of the word ‘responsibility’ in the nursing and wider health literature using three examples, the concept of ‘responsibility for health’ as fulfilling a social function is discussed with reference to policy documents from the UK. The philosophical literature on (...) moral responsibility is introduced, and in considering two versions, reactive attitudes and accountability, it is argued that in application both can be regarded, though with different emphasis, as being constituted in three parts: a responsible agent; having obligations ; and being susceptible to being held responsible if he fails to meet them. The three‐stage model is consistent with the examples of the word responsibility in use, but application to the social function model causes a number of problems for healthcare practice, especially for the reactive attitudes account. Apart from considerable problems in stating what exactly the obligations are and how they can be justified; and how blame might justly be apportioned and by whom, the very ideas of obligation and blame are in conflict within healthcare systems and professional nursing practice which have foundations deeply embedded in the notion of the supremacy of personal autonomy. It is concluded that current application of the concept of responsibility for health is conceptually incoherent, and if it is to retain its place in health policy and discourse, urgent remedy is required. (shrink)

The focus of this paper is public health law and ethics, and the analytic framework advanced in the report Public health: ethical issues by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The author criticises the perceived problems found with liberal models associated with Millian political philosophy and questions the Report’s attempt to add to such theoretical frameworks. The author suggests a stronger theoretical account that the Council could have adopted—that advanced in the works of Joseph Raz—which would have been more appropriate. Instead (...) of seeking to justify overruling the legitimate interests of individuals in favour of society, this account holds that the interests are necessarily interwoven and thus such a conflict does not exist. It is based on an objective moral account and does not require an excessive commitment to individuals’ entitlements. (shrink)

Recent Developments Content Type Journal Article DOI 10.1007/s11673-010-9256-0 Authors Cameron Stewart, Centre of Health Governance, Law and Ethics, Sydney Law School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW Australia Bernadette Richards, Faculty of Law, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia Australia Journal Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Online ISSN 1872-4353 Print ISSN 1176-7529.

This paper starts by introducing a tripartite conception of responsibility for health consisting of a moral agent having moral responsibilities and being held responsible, that is blamed, for failing to meet them and proceeds to a brief discussion of the nature of the blame, noting difficulties in agency and obligation when the concept is applied to health‐threatening behaviours. Insights about the obligations that we hold people to and the extent of their moral agency are revealed by interrogating our blaming behavior, (...) and to facilitate this, my own blaming attitudes and actions are analysed in respect of an imagined adult son who seeks thrills by jumping from a pier into the sea, an activity common around coastlines and intended to be analogous in varying degrees to a range of health‐threatening behaviours. I consider my responses to this imagined act in relation to some features of moralism, the excess of morality, concluding that blame can be justified when it is proportionate and within interpersonal relationships. There is evidence that some nurses hold negative blaming attitudes towards groups of patients considered to have caused or contributed to their illness, but this is not justified, not only because of impaired agency, but also because if there is responsibility for health, associated obligations are owed to those who share our lives, and it is those people who are entitled to hold individuals responsible. Nurses who hold negative blaming attitudes towards groups of patients are invited to identify the status of moral agency, the precise natures of their (failed) obligations, and of the patient–nurse relationship. It is concluded that reflection on these matters and the difference between justified blame and moralism demonstrates that blaming behaviour in the context of professional health care is built on nothing stronger than prejudice. (shrink)

This article provides an understanding and defence of ‘best interests’. The analysis is performed in the context of, and is informed by, English law. The understanding that develops allows for differences in values, and is thus argued to be appropriate in a pluralist liberal system. When understood properly, it is argued, best interests provides the best means of decision-making for people deemed incompetent to decide for themselves. It is accepted that some commentators are cynical of best interests in practice. Following (...) an assessment of some of their principal concerns, it is suggested that best interests in fact provides a construct that is both defensible and desirable. (shrink)

The recent ruling from England on the case of M is one of very few worldwide to consider whether life-sustaining treatment, in the form of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration, should continue to be provided to a patient in a minimally conscious state. Formally concerned with the English law pertaining to precedent autonomy (specifically advance decision-making) and the best interests of the incapacitated patient, the judgment issued in M's case implicitly engages with three different accounts of the value of human (...) life, which respectively emphasise its self-determined, intrinsic and instrumental value. The judge appeared to be most persuaded by the intrinsic value of life and he concluded that treatment ought to continue. Assessing whether his approach or conclusion were ethically appropriate involves significant substantive and evidential questions regarding where the burden of proof should lie and what standard of proof should be required when decisions are to be made about the fates of patients inhabiting ‘twilight worlds’. (shrink)

In an effort to solve the shortage of transplantable organs, there have been several proposals to introduce an opt-out approach to deceased organ donation in England. In seeking to enact the so-called ‘opt-out proposal’ via an amendment to the Human Tissue Act 2004, The Organ Donation Bill 2017–19 represents the most recent attempt at such legal reform. Despite popular calls to the contrary, I argue in this paper that it would be premature for England, or, indeed, any country, to adopt (...) an opt-out approach at this time. Not only is the available evidence inconclusive on whether introduction of the opt-out proposal would increase the supply of transplantable organs, but there is also a chance that doing so might bring about an otherwise avoidable moral harm through an unjustified interference with individual autonomy. I maintain that the resources required to change the law to such effect would be better expended on alternative, provenly efficacious and less contentious mechanisms for increasing the supply of transplantable organs, such as: improving communication with the family of the deceased, developing infrastructure, raising public awareness and enhancing staff training, attitudes and understanding towards organ donation. (shrink)

This paper aims to show that the ethical justifications and the processes for requiring consent for interventional research or treatment are different to requiring consent for the disclosure of patient or subject information. I will argue that these process and theoretical differences are sufficient to view “consent” in the two situations as different concepts and suggest that the phrase “permission to disclose” would be more appropriate in the information disclosure situations.

Neither the English courts nor the National Health Service (NHS) have been immune to the modern mantra of patient choice. This article examines whether beneath the rhetoric any form of real choice is endorsed either in law or in NHS policy. I explore the case law on ‘consent’, look at choice within the NHS and highlight the dilemmas that a mismatch of language and practice poses for clinicians. Given the variance in interpretation and lack of consistency for the individual patient (...) I argue for a semantic change that obviates the use of ‘choice’, focussing instead on the options for treatment that are available and accessible, with due acknowledgement of individual patient preferences, without raising unfettered and false expectations. (shrink)

This is lightly edited and referenced version of a presentation given at the 20th International Philosophy of Nursing conference in Quebec on 23rd August 2016. Philosophical texts are not given the same prominence in nurse education as their more valued younger sibling, primary research evidence, but they can influence practice through guidelines, codes and espoused values. John Stuart Mill’s harm principle, found in On Liberty, is not a universal law, and only a thoroughgoing libertarian would defend it as such, though (...) it, or its remnants, can be seen can be seen in policy documents. But its influence is weakening. Smoking bans in enclosed spaces were initially justified with other‐regarding considerations, but judgements from unsuccessful legal challenges from patients in UK psychiatric hospitals rely on preventing harm to the smoker, even when smoking outside, which does not harm others. In the wake of legislation, no‐smoking policies enacted by hospitals are becoming more aggressive, banning smoking both inside and outside, and extending the use of power gained through employment to prevent nurses assisting patients enjoy a lawful habit. Mill’s dictum has been subverted, and this speaks to the fundamental purpose of nursing. Should nurses collude and willingly exert their power for their version of the good of the patient? Or should they instead reaffirm values that support and facilitate life choices made by autonomous people? The paper supports the latter option, and this has wider application for nursing which can be illuminated, if not settled, by revisiting Mill and his famous dictum. (shrink)

In this paper I get clearer on the considerations that ought to inform the evaluation and development of medico-legal competency criteria—where this is taken to be a question regarding the abilities that ought to be needed for a patient to be found competent in medico-legal contexts. In the “Decisional Competency in Medico-Legal Contexts” section I explore how the question regarding the abilities that ought to be needed for decisional competence is to be interpreted. I begin by considering an interpretation that (...) takes the question to be asking about the abilities needed to satisfy an idealized view of competent decision-making, according to which decisional competency is a matter of possessing those abilities or attributes that are needed to engage in good or effective or, perhaps, substantially autonomous or rational decision-making. The view has some plausibility—it accords with the way decisional competency is understood in a number of everyday contexts—but fails as an interpretation of the question regarding the abilities that should be needed for decisional competence in medico-legal contexts. Nevertheless, consideration of why it is mistaken suggests a more accurate interpretation and points the way in which the question regarding the evaluation of medico-legal competency criteria is to be answered. Building on other scholarly work in the area, I outline in the “Primary and Secondary Requirements” section several requirements that decisional competence criteria ought to satisfy. Then, in the “Applying the Framework” section, I say something about the extent to which medico-legal competency criteria, as well as some models of decisional competency proposed in the academic literature, fulfil those requirements. (shrink)

Recent Developments Content Type Journal Article DOI 10.1007/s11673-010-9256-0 Authors Cameron Stewart, Centre of Health Governance, Law and Ethics, Sydney Law School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW Australia Bernadette Richards, Faculty of Law, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia Australia Journal Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Online ISSN 1872-4353 Print ISSN 1176-7529.