Ethical Judgments: Re-Writing Medical Law

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

Research output: Book/ReportAnthology

Abstract

This edited collection is designed to explore the ethical nature of judicial decision-making, particularly relating to cases in the health/medical sphere, where judges are often called upon to issue rulings on questions containing an explicit ethical component. However, judges do not receive any specific training in ethical decision-making, and often disown any place for ethics in their decision-making. Consequently, decisions made by judges do not present consistent or robust ethical theory, even when cases appear to rely on moral claims.
The project explores this dichotomy by imagining a world in which decisions by judges have to be ethically as well as legally valid. Nine specific cases are reinterpreted in light of that requirement by leading academics in the fields of medical law and bioethics. Two judgments are written in each case, allowing for different views to be presented. Two commentaries - one ethical and one legal - then explore the ramifications of the ethical judgments and provide an opportunity to explore the two judgments from additional ethical and legal perspectives. These four different approaches to each judgment allow for a rich and varied critique of the decisions and ethical theories and issues at play in each case.
LanguageEnglish
Place of PublicationOxford
Number of pages312
Publication statusPublished - 12 Jan 2017

Fingerprint

Ethical Theory
Decision Making
Law
decision making
Ethics
Decision Theory
Bioethics
bioethics
moral philosophy
Medical Writing
Health
health

Keywords

  • medical law
  • medical ethics
  • judicial decision-making

Cite this

Smith, S. W., Coggon, J., Hobson, C., Huxtable, R., McGuinness, S., Miola, J., & Neal, M. (Eds.) (2017). Ethical Judgments: Re-Writing Medical Law. Oxford.
Smith, Stephen W. (Editor) ; Coggon, John (Editor) ; Hobson, Clark (Editor) ; Huxtable, Richard (Editor) ; McGuinness, Sheelagh (Editor) ; Miola, José (Editor) ; Neal, Mary (Editor). / Ethical Judgments : Re-Writing Medical Law. Oxford, 2017. 312 p.
@book{053c0dc4b2434f53ae82389ecd9fdec6,
title = "Ethical Judgments: Re-Writing Medical Law",
abstract = "This edited collection is designed to explore the ethical nature of judicial decision-making, particularly relating to cases in the health/medical sphere, where judges are often called upon to issue rulings on questions containing an explicit ethical component. However, judges do not receive any specific training in ethical decision-making, and often disown any place for ethics in their decision-making. Consequently, decisions made by judges do not present consistent or robust ethical theory, even when cases appear to rely on moral claims.The project explores this dichotomy by imagining a world in which decisions by judges have to be ethically as well as legally valid. Nine specific cases are reinterpreted in light of that requirement by leading academics in the fields of medical law and bioethics. Two judgments are written in each case, allowing for different views to be presented. Two commentaries - one ethical and one legal - then explore the ramifications of the ethical judgments and provide an opportunity to explore the two judgments from additional ethical and legal perspectives. These four different approaches to each judgment allow for a rich and varied critique of the decisions and ethical theories and issues at play in each case.",
keywords = "medical law, medical ethics, judicial decision-making",
editor = "Smith, {Stephen W.} and John Coggon and Clark Hobson and Richard Huxtable and Sheelagh McGuinness and Jos{\'e} Miola and Mary Neal",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "12",
language = "English",
isbn = "9781849465793",

}

Smith, SW, Coggon, J, Hobson, C, Huxtable, R, McGuinness, S, Miola, J & Neal, M (eds) 2017, Ethical Judgments: Re-Writing Medical Law. Oxford.

Ethical Judgments : Re-Writing Medical Law. / Smith, Stephen W. (Editor); Coggon, John (Editor); Hobson, Clark (Editor); Huxtable, Richard (Editor); McGuinness, Sheelagh (Editor); Miola, José (Editor); Neal, Mary (Editor).

Oxford, 2017. 312 p.

Research output: Book/ReportAnthology

TY - BOOK

T1 - Ethical Judgments

T2 - Re-Writing Medical Law

A2 - Smith, Stephen W.

A2 - Coggon, John

A2 - Hobson, Clark

A2 - Huxtable, Richard

A2 - McGuinness, Sheelagh

A2 - Miola, José

A2 - Neal, Mary

PY - 2017/1/12

Y1 - 2017/1/12

N2 - This edited collection is designed to explore the ethical nature of judicial decision-making, particularly relating to cases in the health/medical sphere, where judges are often called upon to issue rulings on questions containing an explicit ethical component. However, judges do not receive any specific training in ethical decision-making, and often disown any place for ethics in their decision-making. Consequently, decisions made by judges do not present consistent or robust ethical theory, even when cases appear to rely on moral claims.The project explores this dichotomy by imagining a world in which decisions by judges have to be ethically as well as legally valid. Nine specific cases are reinterpreted in light of that requirement by leading academics in the fields of medical law and bioethics. Two judgments are written in each case, allowing for different views to be presented. Two commentaries - one ethical and one legal - then explore the ramifications of the ethical judgments and provide an opportunity to explore the two judgments from additional ethical and legal perspectives. These four different approaches to each judgment allow for a rich and varied critique of the decisions and ethical theories and issues at play in each case.

AB - This edited collection is designed to explore the ethical nature of judicial decision-making, particularly relating to cases in the health/medical sphere, where judges are often called upon to issue rulings on questions containing an explicit ethical component. However, judges do not receive any specific training in ethical decision-making, and often disown any place for ethics in their decision-making. Consequently, decisions made by judges do not present consistent or robust ethical theory, even when cases appear to rely on moral claims.The project explores this dichotomy by imagining a world in which decisions by judges have to be ethically as well as legally valid. Nine specific cases are reinterpreted in light of that requirement by leading academics in the fields of medical law and bioethics. Two judgments are written in each case, allowing for different views to be presented. Two commentaries - one ethical and one legal - then explore the ramifications of the ethical judgments and provide an opportunity to explore the two judgments from additional ethical and legal perspectives. These four different approaches to each judgment allow for a rich and varied critique of the decisions and ethical theories and issues at play in each case.

KW - medical law

KW - medical ethics

KW - judicial decision-making

UR - https://www.bloomsbury.com/au/academic/hart/Medical-Law-Ethics

M3 - Anthology

SN - 9781849465793

SN - 9781509904143

BT - Ethical Judgments

CY - Oxford

ER -

Smith SW, (ed.), Coggon J, (ed.), Hobson C, (ed.), Huxtable R, (ed.), McGuinness S, (ed.), Miola J, (ed.) et al. Ethical Judgments: Re-Writing Medical Law. Oxford, 2017. 312 p.