Topic

Author/Academic

Viewpoint

Source

R.I.P. Sidaway: patient-oriented disclosure—a standard worth waiting for?: Montgomery v. Lanarkshire Health Board

R Heywood.

This case note looks at Montgomery and suggests that this has caused the law to catch up with clinical practice, rather than introduce radical change.

Med L Rev2015; 23(3): 455–466

Advance refusals of life-sustaining medical treatment: the relativity of

an absolute right.

S Michalowski

Considers the right of competent adults to refuse life-sustaining medical treatment and advance decisions. It discusses the balance to be struck between autonomy and the presumption in favour of preserving human life and the inherent ambiguities about capacity, problems of interpretation and changes in patient circumstances such as religious belief, new treatment options and the best interests test.

MLR 2005; 68(6): 958–982

It should be, therefore it is.

C Foster

The author criticises the decision in Chester v. Afshar [2004]. Establishing causation is a fundamental component of the law of negligence. The author asserts the view that in this case the House of Lords ‘deemed’ causation to be established even though this was not grounded on legal principle. The decision was based on policy.

New Law Journal 2004; 154: 7151

Lasting powers of attorney for healthcare under the Mental Capacity Act 2005: enhanced perspectives for self-determination for future incapacity

or a simulacrum?

J Samanta

This article focuses on lasting powers of attorney for healthcare decisions. It also

provides an overview of advance decisions and proxy decision-making using

comparative evaluation.

Med L Rev 2009; 17: 377–409

White coats or flak jackets? Doctors, children and the courts—Again

J Eekelaar

This article analyses Gillick competency and the extent to which this supports

autonomy for the competent minor

Law Quarterly Review 1993; 109: 182–187

Dworkin on Dementia: Elegant Theory, Questionable Policy

A Maclean.

Maclean examines challenges to advance refusals of healthcare and argues that they have a legitimate and important role to play.

Medical Law Review 2006; 14(3): 291–320