The Jurisdiction of Medical Law

Veitch, Kenneth

doi:10.4324/9781351146241

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is relevant to our legal analysis insofar as the issues become political rather than solely moral in nature (Coggon & Miola, 2011). It may seem strange that Kant's concerns are relevant in the metaphysics of free will, but it is clear that there is what Geuss describes as a "strong 'Kantian' strand" (Geuss, 2008) in contemporary political philosophy in general, and medical law in particular (Veitch, 2007), or in Gray's terms, a pursuit of "the ideal of rational consensus" (Gray, 2000). This can be seen though their projects are markedly unalike, Geuss and Gray assume a Hobbesian perspective to express their dissatisfaction with the dominance in political philosophy of (as they see it) misplaced faith in the relevance, applicability, and potency of such unitary, "rationalised," abstract theorising, typified most forcefully for them in Rawls' influential theory of justice (Rawls, 1999).…”

Section: Individualism In the Context Of Autonomymentioning

confidence: 98%

Individualism in the Context of Medical Treatment

Mohd Zahir,

Tengku Zainudin,

Rajamanickam

et al. 2023

I-iECONS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The common and individualistic understanding of autonomy is that an individual has the right to exercise his autonomy for medical treatment. In contemporary decades, this pattern has been faced in numerous disciplinary and intellectual ways. In particular, the problem here is that advocates of autonomy have argued that the personalities, desires, preferences and indeed autonomy of individuals are almost often influenced by their relationships with others including doctors. There is a problem for individuals who have suffered from COVID-19 to implement their autonomy in making decisions about medical treatment. Therefore, in the sense of medical practice, this article seeks to examine and address problems relating to the concept of patient autonomy. The methodology engaged in this article is qualitatively based. Autonomy is essential because the patient needs to make sure that he or she is actively involved in the medical treatment, and not just bow to his doctor. As a result, we can see here that patients may be quite experienced about their illnesses, but they commonly do not know the entire picture of it. Good Health and Well-being (Sustainable Development Goal 3) enables individuals to continue to do what they value, retain the ability to make decisions, preserve their independence and uphold their own autonomy. However, the most important thing is whether there is enough autonomy in medical practice and whether the autonomy of the patients must be respected. This article suggested that it is important to have clear guidelines and laws with regard to patients in Malaysia including those who suffered from COVID-19 since the guideline and laws with regard to this principle of autonomy i.e. to make decisions for medical treatment is still unclear. It is suggested that it is incumbent for the government to prepare a policy response to address the needs of hospital resources and the economic aspect too.

show abstract

Section: Individualism In the Context Of Autonomymentioning

confidence: 98%

Individualism in the Context of Medical Treatment

Mohd Zahir,

Tengku Zainudin,

Rajamanickam

et al. 2023

I-iECONS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The dominant perspective in early works in health and law (especially medical law) gave great primacy to individual autonomy, 113 though more recent studies challenge the rigour and consequent supremacy of that principle. 114 The field of public health ethics and law, whilst containing libertarian voices, 115 is the site of many 'anti-autonomy' arguments -for example, through critiques about the inflated value given to liberty as just one amongst several values of political importance.…”

Section: Opportunities For a More Radical Public Health Ethics And Lawmentioning

confidence: 99%

Smoke Free? Public Health Policy, Coercive Paternalism, and the Ethics of Long‐Game Regulation

Coggon

2020

Journal of Law and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contemporary public health advocacy promotes a ‘fifth wave of public health’: a ‘cultural’ shift wherein the public's health becomes recognized as a common good, to be realized through concerted developments in the institutional, social, and physical environments. With reference to examples from anti‐tobacco policy, in this article I critically examine the fifth‐wave agenda in England. I explore it as an approach that, in the face of liberal individualism, works through a ‘long‐game’ method of progressive social change. Given the political context, and a predominant concern with narrow understandings of legal coercion, I explain how efforts are made to apply what are presented as less ethically contentious framings of regulatory methods, such as are provided by ‘libertarian paternalism’ (‘nudge theory’). I argue that these fail as measures of legitimacy for long‐game regulation: the philosophical foundations of public health laws require a greater – and more obviously contestable, but also more ambitious – critical depth.

show abstract

“…These general coordinates were matched by the ascendancy of pro-autonomy perspectives across relevant sections of the academy, legal practice and, increasingly, the judiciary. 96 At a very basic level, extant paternalism was condemned as more suitable to an earlier age of deference (the 1950s, say) and so`out of time'. As regards public expectations, law was taken to be`in the rear and limping a little', in the words of a frequently quoted dictum from Australia.…”

Section: Empowering: the Mental Capacity Actmentioning

confidence: 99%

Law and Rhetoric: Critical Possibilities

Harrington

Series

Keene

2019

Journal of Law and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What contribution can rhetoric make to socio‐legal studies? Though now a byword for deception and spin, rhetoric was long identified with the very substance of law and politics. Latterly radical scholars have foregrounded an understanding of law as rhetoric in their polemics against legal formalism, but it needs to be complemented by a critical perspective which goes beyond simple revivalism, taking account of rhetoric's own blind spots, inquiring into the means by which some speakers and listeners are privileged and others excluded or silenced. The critical potential of legal rhetoric is tested here through a review of the developing law on mental capacity and the best interests of people with disabilities in England and Wales. Much of what is at stake there is properly grasped in terms of a politics of speech: who is addressed, who can speak, who must speak, and how are they represented in judicial and media discourse.

show abstract

The Jurisdiction of Medical Law

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Individualism in the Context of Medical Treatment

Individualism in the Context of Medical Treatment

Smoke Free? Public Health Policy, Coercive Paternalism, and the Ethics of Long‐Game Regulation

Law and Rhetoric: Critical Possibilities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About