Conclusion: medical law re-written?

Stephen W Smith, John Coggon, Clark Hobson, Richard Huxtable, Sheelagh McGuinness, José Miola, Mary Neal

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

In this collection we have imagined how key cases in medical law could have been decided. Reflecting on the development of the ethical judgments project in general, and more directly on the resulting contents of this book, various themes have emerged. The alternative judgments and the comments on them have proven a fascinating exercise for providing counterfactual medico-legal developments; alternative histories that the law might have created. They have also, naturally, highlighted more explicitly than the original judgments how ethical concerns might have impacted upon judicial reasoning. But in practical and academic terms, the lessons from the project run much deeper than the production of mere counterfactuals. In this Conclusion we consider some of what we have learned in our exercises in judicial reasoning.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationEthical Judgments
Subtitle of host publicationRe-writing Medical Law
EditorsStephen W. Smith, John Coggon, Clark Hobson, Richard Huxtable, Sheelagh McGuinness, José Miola, Mary Neal
Place of PublicationOxford
Pages255-259
Number of pages5
Publication statusPublished - 12 Jan 2017

Keywords

  • medical ethics
  • law
  • medical law

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Conclusion: medical law re-written?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Smith, S. W., Coggon, J., Hobson, C., Huxtable, R., McGuinness, S., Miola, J., & Neal, M. (2017). Conclusion: medical law re-written? In S. W. Smith, J. Coggon, C. Hobson, R. Huxtable, S. McGuinness, J. Miola, & M. Neal (Eds.), Ethical Judgments: Re-writing Medical Law (pp. 255-259). Oxford.