Embryo research, cloning, assisted conception, neonatal care, saviour siblings, organ transplants, drug trials – modern developments have transformed the field of medicine almost beyond recognition in recent decades and the law struggles to keep up. In this highly acclaimed and very accessible book Margaret Brazier and Emma Cave provide an incisive survey of the legal situation in areas as diverse as fertility treatment, patient consent, assisted dying, malpractice and medical privacy. The sixth edition of this book has been fully revised and updated to cover the latest cases, from assisted dying to informed consent; legislative reform of the NHS, professional regulation and redress; European regulations on data protection and clinical trials; and legislation and policy reforms on organ donation, assisted conception and mental capacity. Essential reading for healthcare professionals, lecturers, medical and law students, this book is of relevance to all whose perusal of the daily news causes wonder, hope and consternation at the advances and limitations of medicine, patients and the law.
The book explores the relationship between violence against women on one hand,
and the rights to health and reproductive health on the other. It argues that
violation of the right to health is a consequence of violence, and that (state)
health policies might be a cause of – or create the conditions for – violence
against women. It significantly contributes to feminist and international human
rights legal scholarship by conceptualising a new ground-breaking idea, violence
against women’s health (VAWH), using the Hippocratic paradigm as the backbone of
the analysis. The two dimensions of violence at the core of the book – the
horizontal, ‘interpersonal’ dimension and the vertical ‘state policies’
dimension – are investigated through around 70 decisions of domestic, regional
and international judicial or quasi-judicial bodies (the anamnesis). The concept
of VAWH, drawn from the anamnesis, enriches the traditional concept of violence
against women with a human rights-based approach to autonomy and a reflection on
the pervasiveness of patterns of discrimination (diagnosis). VAWH as theorised
in the book allows the reconceptualisation of states’ obligations in an
innovative way, by identifying for both dimensions obligations of result, due
diligence obligations, and obligations to progressively take steps (treatment).
The book eventually asks whether it is not international law itself that is the
ultimate cause of VAWH (prognosis).
(Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice; R (AM) v Director of Public Prosecutions  UKSC 38’ (2015) 23(1) MedicalLaw Review 144.
18 NHS England, Developing a New Approach to Palliative Care Funding (March 2015).
19 See Mason, Laurie, Mason and McCall Smith’s Law and Medical Ethics , 18.01; but see also E Jackson, MedicalLaw: Text, Cases and Materials (3rd edn, 2013) Oxford University Press, pp 874–875.
20 See D Shaw ‘The Body as Unwarranted Life Support’ (2007) 33 Journal of Medical Ethics 519 arguing that if a competent person wishes to die this is
benefits as much as an absence of negative factors agreeing with the GMC that partnership can ‘have therapeutic benefits and is regarded as an integral aspect of professionalism in treatment’. 141 The ‘death of Sidaway ’ will attract few mourners. Yet perhaps Montgomery has still broader implications for medicallaw and not all are wholly welcome. The judgement notes the change in provision of healthcare and the move away from old fashioned doctor–patient relationships to a world of multiple health providers and the ever encroaching role of managerialism
food and drink to an elderly resident who died in 2012. 185
1 See generally, MA Jones, Medical Negligence (4th edn, 2008) Sweet & Maxwell; A Buchan Lewis and Buchan : Clinical Negligence – A Practical Guide (7th edn, 2012) Tottel.
2 Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee  1 QB 428. And see Davies v Countess of Chester Hospital  EWHC 4294 (QB).
3 See Lord Woolf, ‘Are the Courts Excessively Deferential to the Medical Profession?’ (2001) 9 MedicalLaw Review 1.
4 Though she may be in breach of her
wholesale decoupling, while others have suggested ‘nudge’ legislation to guide the courts. 8 Even if we remain party to the Convention, the HRA is under attack. 9 The majority of the Commission on a Bill of Rights, reporting in 2012, 10 concluded that a UK Bill of Rights could replace the HRA, incorporating the UK’s obligations under the ECHR while improving the sense of public ownership of the human rights regime. 11
The form of human rights protection may be subject to change, but the legacy of the Convention and HRA in the context of medicallaw is likely to
woman could not be compelled to consent. Finally, in removing the fetus, might doctors contravene section 58 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 in that they are procuring a miscarriage?
If medical progress comes close to making ectogenesis in any form feasible, the compromise on which abortion laws rest in England will be severely challenged, and evading the thorny question of fetal status and father’s rights will become impossible.
1 See R Sifris, ‘Restrictive Regulation of Abortion and the Right to Health’ (2010) 18 MedicalLaw
Newspapers plc  FSR 90; Re TC (A Minor) (1993) 2 MedicalLaw Review 376.
21  1 All ER 821, HL. See 19.15.
22  EWHC 443 (Fam).
23 Under the Coroners Act 2009, s 15.
24  EWHC 443 (Fam), .
25 For example, see 14th Report of the Criminal Law Reform Committee, Offences Against the Person (Cmnd 7844, 1980).
26 See JM Appel, ‘Defining Death: When Physicians and Family Disagree’ (2005) 31 Journal of Medical Ethics 641.
27 Airedale NHS Trust v Bland  2 All ER 821, HL. See 19
Ian Kennedy, oversight and accountability in the 1980s
selfregulation and calling for external involvement in the development of professional standards. Kennedy’s Reith Lectures, entitled
Unmasking Medicine, are recognised as a pivotal moment in the
history of British bioethics, with a senior doctor identifying them as
‘one of the key events in the retreat from paternalism’.1
In addition to Unmasking Medicine, Kennedy endorsed bioethics in academic publications, newspaper columns and several other
radio and television programmes during the 1980s. In this period,
he also established a Centre of MedicalLaw and Ethics at King
The emergence of bioethics in British universities
postgraduate level, and indeed at undergraduate level, as soon as possible’
through the Centre of MedicalLaw and Ethics, which he had
established at King’s College in 1978.45 In letters to Alan Johnson
The emergence of bioethics in British universities 193
and Mary Lobjoit, Kennedy proposed that the Centre of MedicalLaw and Ethics could sponsor a ‘meeting of all those interested in
the teaching of medical ethics so that experience can be shared and
a common policy adopted for the future’.46 This echoed earlier proposals by Raanan Gillon, who was an affiliate of