Introduction - medicine in the courtroom: judges, ethics and the law

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 the ‘conjoined twins’ case, Re A , the Court of Appeal had to issue a judgment under the sharp glare of the global media spotlight, on a question both divisive and morally significant: could English law sanction the separation of two legally distinct but physically united babies, knowing that one would be killed and one saved by the operation, and in the face of a refusal to consent by the parents but with medical opinion that favoured the surgery? In the much-cited dictum that heads this introduction, Ward LJ denies the relevance of the moral or ethical dimensions of the case as a component of his legal determination, 2 despite their obvious and urgent nature. 3 His judicial reasoning, he suggests, draws purely from law. In conceptual legal jargon, he commits to a formalist position: judges should not bring extra-legal considerations to their decision-making, and by implication, can find all of the necessary answers to the question within the law itself.
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
Pages1-10
Number of pages10
Publication statusPublished - 12 Jan 2017

Fingerprint

Conjoined Twins
Glare
Ethics
Decision Making
Parents
Head
moral philosophy
Medicine
medicine
Law
sanction
baby
surgery
appeal
parents
decision making

Keywords

  • medical ethics
  • medico-legal doctrine
  • law
  • medicine

Cite this

Smith, S. W., Coggon, J., Hobson, C., Huxtable, R., McGuinness, S., Miola, J., & Neal, M. (2017). Introduction - medicine in the courtroom: judges, ethics and the law. In S. W. Smith, J. Coggon, C. H., R. H., S. McGuinness, J. Miola, & M. Neal (Eds.), Ethical Judgments: Re-writing Medical Law (pp. 1-10). Oxford.
Smith, Stephen W ; Coggon, John ; Hobson, Clark ; Huxtable, Richard ; McGuinness, Sheelagh ; Miola, José ; Neal, Mary. / Introduction - medicine in the courtroom : judges, ethics and the law. Ethical Judgments: Re-writing Medical Law. editor / Stephen W. Smith ; John Coggon ; Clark Hobson ; Richard Huxtable ; Sheelagh McGuinness ; José Miola ; Mary Neal. Oxford, 2017. pp. 1-10
@inbook{4fd2dbe09c6b4071adf881bcf3c5aaa2,
title = "Introduction - medicine in the courtroom: judges, ethics and the law",
abstract = "In the ‘conjoined twins’ case, Re A , the Court of Appeal had to issue a judgment under the sharp glare of the global media spotlight, on a question both divisive and morally significant: could English law sanction the separation of two legally distinct but physically united babies, knowing that one would be killed and one saved by the operation, and in the face of a refusal to consent by the parents but with medical opinion that favoured the surgery? In the much-cited dictum that heads this introduction, Ward LJ denies the relevance of the moral or ethical dimensions of the case as a component of his legal determination, 2 despite their obvious and urgent nature. 3 His judicial reasoning, he suggests, draws purely from law. In conceptual legal jargon, he commits to a formalist position: judges should not bring extra-legal considerations to their decision-making, and by implication, can find all of the necessary answers to the question within the law itself.",
keywords = "medical ethics, medico-legal doctrine, law, medicine",
author = "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",
pages = "1--10",
editor = "Smith, {Stephen W.} and John Coggon and {Clark Hobson} and {Richard Huxtable} and McGuinness, {Sheelagh } and Jos{\'e} Miola and Mary Neal",
booktitle = "Ethical Judgments",

}

Smith, SW, Coggon, J, Hobson, C, Huxtable, R, McGuinness, S, Miola, J & Neal, M 2017, Introduction - medicine in the courtroom: judges, ethics and the law. in SW Smith, J Coggon, CH, RH, S McGuinness, J Miola & M Neal (eds), Ethical Judgments: Re-writing Medical Law. Oxford, pp. 1-10.

Introduction - medicine in the courtroom : judges, ethics and the law. / Smith, Stephen W; Coggon, John; Hobson, Clark; Huxtable, Richard ; McGuinness, Sheelagh; Miola, José; Neal, Mary.

Ethical Judgments: Re-writing Medical Law. ed. / Stephen W. Smith; John Coggon; Clark Hobson; Richard Huxtable; Sheelagh McGuinness; José Miola; Mary Neal. Oxford, 2017. p. 1-10.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

TY - CHAP

T1 - Introduction - medicine in the courtroom

T2 - judges, ethics and the law

AU - Smith, Stephen W

AU - Coggon, John

AU - Hobson, Clark

AU - Huxtable, Richard

AU - McGuinness, Sheelagh

AU - Miola, José

AU - Neal, Mary

PY - 2017/1/12

Y1 - 2017/1/12

N2 - In the ‘conjoined twins’ case, Re A , the Court of Appeal had to issue a judgment under the sharp glare of the global media spotlight, on a question both divisive and morally significant: could English law sanction the separation of two legally distinct but physically united babies, knowing that one would be killed and one saved by the operation, and in the face of a refusal to consent by the parents but with medical opinion that favoured the surgery? In the much-cited dictum that heads this introduction, Ward LJ denies the relevance of the moral or ethical dimensions of the case as a component of his legal determination, 2 despite their obvious and urgent nature. 3 His judicial reasoning, he suggests, draws purely from law. In conceptual legal jargon, he commits to a formalist position: judges should not bring extra-legal considerations to their decision-making, and by implication, can find all of the necessary answers to the question within the law itself.

AB - In the ‘conjoined twins’ case, Re A , the Court of Appeal had to issue a judgment under the sharp glare of the global media spotlight, on a question both divisive and morally significant: could English law sanction the separation of two legally distinct but physically united babies, knowing that one would be killed and one saved by the operation, and in the face of a refusal to consent by the parents but with medical opinion that favoured the surgery? In the much-cited dictum that heads this introduction, Ward LJ denies the relevance of the moral or ethical dimensions of the case as a component of his legal determination, 2 despite their obvious and urgent nature. 3 His judicial reasoning, he suggests, draws purely from law. In conceptual legal jargon, he commits to a formalist position: judges should not bring extra-legal considerations to their decision-making, and by implication, can find all of the necessary answers to the question within the law itself.

KW - medical ethics

KW - medico-legal doctrine

KW - law

KW - medicine

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

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9781849465793

SN - 9781509904143

SP - 1

EP - 10

BT - Ethical Judgments

A2 - Smith, Stephen W.

A2 - Coggon, John

A2 - null, Clark Hobson

A2 - null, Richard Huxtable

A2 - McGuinness, Sheelagh

A2 - Miola, José

A2 - Neal, Mary

CY - Oxford

ER -

Smith SW, Coggon J, Hobson C, Huxtable R, McGuinness S, Miola J et al. Introduction - medicine in the courtroom: judges, ethics and the law. In Smith SW, Coggon J, CH, RH, McGuinness S, Miola J, Neal M, editors, Ethical Judgments: Re-writing Medical Law. Oxford. 2017. p. 1-10