Amazon cover image
Image from Amazon.com

Landmark cases in medical law / edited by Jonathan Herring and Jesse Wall.

Contributor(s): Material type: TextTextSeries: Landmark casesPublication details: Oxford Hart Publishing 2015. Description: xxv, 350 pages ; 25 cmISBN:
  • 9781849465649
Subject(s): DDC classification:
  • 344.04​1  HER.L
Contents:
Cover; Half-title; Title; Copyright; Dedication; Contents; List of Contributors; Table of Cases; Table of Legislation; Table of International Conventions; Introduction; I. THE LANDSCAPE, THE SUB-TERRAIN AND THE HORIZON; II. CONCLUSION; 1. Doodeward v Spence (1908); I. INTRODUCTION; II. DOODEWARD V SPENCE: THE FACTS; III. THE JUDGMENTS; IV. LATER CASES; V. CONCLUSION; 2. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957]: Medical Law's Accordion; I. INTRODUCTION; II. BOLAM-THE FACTS AND THE DECISION; III. 'OLD' BOLAM AND ITS EXPANDING INFLUENCE; IV. BOLITHO-'NEW' BOLAM ARRIVES. V. CONTRACTING AGAIN-(SOME OF) THE WALLS CLOSE INVI. THE PLACE OF BOLAM TODAY-AND WHAT ABOUT THE FUTURE?; 3. Re B (A Minor) (Wardship: Sterilisation) [1988]: 'People Like Us Don't Have Babies': Learning Disability, Prospective Parenthood and Legal Transformations; I. INTRODUCTION; II. THE EMERGENCE OF LEARNING DISABILITY: MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE AND SOCIAL POLICY; III. LEARNING DISABILITY IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS; IV. LAW'S DEFERENCE TO MEDICINE; V. THE PROBLEM OF RIGHTS; VI. DISPUTING THE NATURAL-SEXUALITY AND DISABILITY AS SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED; VII. REPOSITIONING THE 'MEDICAL' VIII. THE POSSIBILITIES FOR LEGAL TRANSFORMATIONIX. AN INCREASED SCRUTINY?; X. A SYSTEM RESPONSIVE TO CHANGE?; 4. Re B (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment) [1981]: 'The Child Must Live': Disability, Parents and the Law; I. INTRODUCTION; II. FACTS; III. THE JUDGMENTS; IV. THE CONTEXT OF THE DECISION; V. CRITIQUE OF THE DECISION; VI. THEORIES OF DISABILITY; VII. THE NATURE OF PERSONHOOD; VIII. BEST INTERESTS; IX. PRENATAL TESTING; X. CONCLUSION; 5. Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993]; I. INTRODUCTION; II. COMMON GROUND; III. THE SPEECHES; IV. THE INGREDIENTS IN THE MIX. IV. BLAND: THE AFTERMATHV. CONCLUSION; 6. R v Cambridge Health Authority, ex parte B (A Minor) [1995]: A Tale of Two Judgments; I. INTRODUCTION; II. OVERVIEW; III. GROUNDS OF REVIEW AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW; IV. CALIBRATING THE STANDARD OF REVIEW; V. THE ETHICAL SUB-TERRAIN; VI. CONCLUSION; 7. R v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust, ex parte L [1999]: Bournewood Fifteen Years On; I. BACKGROUND; II. THE HOUSE OF LORDS' DECISION; III. HL V UNITED KINGDOM; IV. STEPS TO PLUG THE GAP; V. THE DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY SAFEGUARDS; VI. THE WAY FORWARD? 8. Re MB (An Adult: Medical Treatment) [1997] and St George's Healthcare NHS Trust v S [1998]: The Dilemma of the 'Court-Ordered' CaesareanI. INTRODUCTION; II. THE LANDMARK CASES; III. ANALYSIS OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE DECISIONS IN THE LANDMARK CASES; IV. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS; 9. R v Department of Health, ex parte Source Informatics Ltd [1999]; I. INTRODUCTION; II. CASE HISTORY; III. REASONABLE EXPECTATION AND ARTICLE 8 ECHR; IV. CONSENT AND AUTONOMY; V. ANONYMITY; VI. RELEVANCE OF DETRIMENT; VII. IDENTIFIABILITY IS NOT DETERMINATIVE; VIII. ENTITLED TO PROTECTION; IX. DATA PROTECTION LAW.
Tags from this library: No tags from this library for this title. Log in to add tags.

Includes bibliographical references and index.



Cover; Half-title; Title; Copyright; Dedication; Contents; List of Contributors; Table of Cases; Table of Legislation; Table of International Conventions; Introduction; I. THE LANDSCAPE, THE SUB-TERRAIN AND THE HORIZON; II. CONCLUSION; 1. Doodeward v Spence (1908); I. INTRODUCTION; II. DOODEWARD V SPENCE: THE FACTS; III. THE JUDGMENTS; IV. LATER CASES; V. CONCLUSION; 2. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957]: Medical Law's Accordion; I. INTRODUCTION; II. BOLAM-THE FACTS AND THE DECISION; III. 'OLD' BOLAM AND ITS EXPANDING INFLUENCE; IV. BOLITHO-'NEW' BOLAM ARRIVES.
V. CONTRACTING AGAIN-(SOME OF) THE WALLS CLOSE INVI. THE PLACE OF BOLAM TODAY-AND WHAT ABOUT THE FUTURE?; 3. Re B (A Minor) (Wardship: Sterilisation) [1988]: 'People Like Us Don't Have Babies': Learning Disability, Prospective Parenthood and Legal Transformations; I. INTRODUCTION; II. THE EMERGENCE OF LEARNING DISABILITY: MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE AND SOCIAL POLICY; III. LEARNING DISABILITY IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS; IV. LAW'S DEFERENCE TO MEDICINE; V. THE PROBLEM OF RIGHTS; VI. DISPUTING THE NATURAL-SEXUALITY AND DISABILITY AS SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED; VII. REPOSITIONING THE 'MEDICAL'
VIII. THE POSSIBILITIES FOR LEGAL TRANSFORMATIONIX. AN INCREASED SCRUTINY?; X. A SYSTEM RESPONSIVE TO CHANGE?; 4. Re B (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment) [1981]: 'The Child Must Live': Disability, Parents and the Law; I. INTRODUCTION; II. FACTS; III. THE JUDGMENTS; IV. THE CONTEXT OF THE DECISION; V. CRITIQUE OF THE DECISION; VI. THEORIES OF DISABILITY; VII. THE NATURE OF PERSONHOOD; VIII. BEST INTERESTS; IX. PRENATAL TESTING; X. CONCLUSION; 5. Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993]; I. INTRODUCTION; II. COMMON GROUND; III. THE SPEECHES; IV. THE INGREDIENTS IN THE MIX.
IV. BLAND: THE AFTERMATHV. CONCLUSION; 6. R v Cambridge Health Authority, ex parte B (A Minor) [1995]: A Tale of Two Judgments; I. INTRODUCTION; II. OVERVIEW; III. GROUNDS OF REVIEW AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW; IV. CALIBRATING THE STANDARD OF REVIEW; V. THE ETHICAL SUB-TERRAIN; VI. CONCLUSION; 7. R v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust, ex parte L [1999]: Bournewood Fifteen Years On; I. BACKGROUND; II. THE HOUSE OF LORDS' DECISION; III. HL V UNITED KINGDOM; IV. STEPS TO PLUG THE GAP; V. THE DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY SAFEGUARDS; VI. THE WAY FORWARD?
8. Re MB (An Adult: Medical Treatment) [1997] and St George's Healthcare NHS Trust v S [1998]: The Dilemma of the 'Court-Ordered' CaesareanI. INTRODUCTION; II. THE LANDMARK CASES; III. ANALYSIS OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE DECISIONS IN THE LANDMARK CASES; IV. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS; 9. R v Department of Health, ex parte Source Informatics Ltd [1999]; I. INTRODUCTION; II. CASE HISTORY; III. REASONABLE EXPECTATION AND ARTICLE 8 ECHR; IV. CONSENT AND AUTONOMY; V. ANONYMITY; VI. RELEVANCE OF DETRIMENT; VII. IDENTIFIABILITY IS NOT DETERMINATIVE; VIII. ENTITLED TO PROTECTION; IX. DATA PROTECTION LAW.

There are no comments on this title.

to post a comment.