Conclusion : medical law re-written?

Smith, Stephen W and Coggon, John and Hobson, Clark and Huxtable, Richard and McGuinness, Sheelagh and Miola, José and Neal, Mary; Smith, Stephen W. and Coggon, John and Hobson, Clark and Huxtable, Richard and McGuinness, Sheelagh and Miola, José and Neal, Mary, eds. (2017) Conclusion : medical law re-written? In: Ethical Judgments. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp. 255-259. ISBN 9781509904143

Full text not available in this repository.Request a copy from the Strathclyde author

Abstract

In this collection we have imagined how key cases in medical law could have been decided. Reflecting on the development of the ethical judgments project in general, and more directly on the resulting contents of this book, various themes have emerged. The alternative judgments and the comments on them have proven a fascinating exercise for providing counterfactual medico-legal developments; alternative histories that the law might have created. They have also, naturally, highlighted more explicitly than the original judgments how ethical concerns might have impacted upon judicial reasoning. But in practical and academic terms, the lessons from the project run much deeper than the production of mere counterfactuals. In this Conclusion we consider some of what we have learned in our exercises in judicial reasoning.

ORCID iDs

Smith, Stephen W, Coggon, John, Hobson, Clark, Huxtable, Richard, McGuinness, Sheelagh, Miola, José and Neal, Mary ORCID logoORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2374-868X; Smith, Stephen W., Coggon, John, Hobson, Clark, Huxtable, Richard, McGuinness, Sheelagh, Miola, José and Neal, Mary
CORE (COnnecting REpositories)