Picture of boy being examining by doctor at a tuberculosis sanatorium

Understanding our future through Open Access research about our past...

Strathprints makes available scholarly Open Access content by researchers in the Centre for the Social History of Health & Healthcare (CSHHH), based within the School of Humanities, and considered Scotland's leading centre for the history of health and medicine.

Research at CSHHH explores the modern world since 1800 in locations as diverse as the UK, Asia, Africa, North America, and Europe. Areas of specialism include contraception and sexuality; family health and medical services; occupational health and medicine; disability; the history of psychiatry; conflict and warfare; and, drugs, pharmaceuticals and intoxicants.

Explore the Open Access research of the Centre for the Social History of Health and Healthcare. Or explore all of Strathclyde's Open Access research...

Image: Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust. Wellcome Collection - CC-BY.

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 (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


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.