Medical Law Ii

Front 1

Chief Medical Officer

Back 1

1000 patients a year will die waiting for an organ transplant.

Front 2

Organ Donation Taskforce

Back 2

Set up in 2006. Reported back in 2008 that no change in law was necessary. Found that 70-90% of public supported organ donation. However, only 29% of population are on the register.

Front 3

Alder Hey and Bristol Infirmary Scandals

Back 3

Children's organs were being stored without parent's consent. Led to the introduction of the Human Tissue Act 2004.

Front 4

Panorama Episode 1980

Back 4

Doubted the concept of brain-death. Saw a drop in organ donation. Took 15 months to recover.

Front 5

Truog

Back 5

Brain-dead patients anaesthetised before organ transplantation.

If human donors weren't required, concept would disappear.

Should restore traditional understanding of death.

Front 6

Peter Singer

Back 6

Brain-death a convenient fiction which serves interests of transplant teams

Front 7

Youngner

Back 7

Only 35% of physicians/nurses correctly identified legal and medical criteria for determining death.

Front 8

Laura Ashworth Case

Back 8

Wanted to be living kidney donor for mother. Organs retrieved and given to strangers at the top of the waiting list. Led to DoH issuing new guidance which reiterated unconditional donation but allowed for requested allocation where nobody on waiting list in desperate need.

Front 9

English and Sommerville

Back 9

Presumed consent could help to reduce the burden of deciding on families.

Front 10

BMA

Back 10

One of the most consistent supporters of a soft opt-out system

Front 11

Jarvis

Back 11

Supports reciprocity of organ donation as a cheap and effective way to increase donation rates.

Front 12

Gillon

Back 12

Argues reciprocity goes against the principle of treatment by need, resources shouldn't be allocated based on blameworthiness.

Front 13

Eaton

Back 13

Argues reciprocity could be incorporated into opt-out system i.e. warned when opting out that it could harm their chances of getting an organ.

Front 14

Emson

Back 14

Body should be regarded as on loan from biomass

Front 15

Harris

Back 15

Duty to donate, somewhat like jury duty. More than one set of moral claims for organs. One group set to lose very little, other set to lose their life. Separates harm to interests and harm to the individual.

Front 16

Re W

Back 16

Stated Family Law Act 1969 (which gives rights to 16/17 year olds) would not apply to organ donation because it does not constitute either treatment or diagnosis.

Front 17

Re Y (Bone Marrow)

Back 17

Donation held to be in best interests of mentally disabled individual. However, Connell J doubted if reasoning could apply to organ donation. Relative to bone marrow, very painful procedure.

Front 18

Strunk v Strunk

Back 18

Court approved kidney donation as benefit of saving brother was bigger than risk from kidney removal.

Front 19

Radcliffe-Richards

Back 19

Argue risks of continuing ban on organ markets, creating black markets are far more risky than a regulated, open market.

Front 20

Wilkinson

Back 20

Criticises ban on conditional donation. If person gives money to Oxfam to spite wife, nobody would expect them to morally decline.

Front 21

Fovargue and Ost

Back 21

Public consultation would not be enough for xenotransplantation due to unknown risks. Risks so great there should be outright ban. Would fail test of proportionality.

Front 22

Finnis

Back 22

Foetus should acquire rights from moment of conception.

Front 23

Little

Back 23

To be pregnant is to be inhibited, women should have the right to say no.

Front 24

Hoppe and Miola

Back 24

Argues explicit inclusion of mothers in list of people who may be liable under OAPA 1861 shows focus is on the interests of the foetus.

Front 25

R v Bourne

Back 25

14yo given abortion after violent rape. If doctor is of opinion, based on reasonable grounds and adequate knowledge, that the probable consequence of pregnancy is woman will be physical/mental wreck then jury is entitled to take view that doctor is operating to save woman's life.

Front 26

Brazier

Back 26

Counters Harris by saying that death rituals are part of our culture.

Front 27

R v Secretary State of Health

Back 27

Morning after pill did not constitute unlawfully procuring a miscarriage. Could be no miscarriage if fertilised egg was lost prior to implantation.

Front 28

R v Sarah Louise Catt

Back 28

Aborted baby in final stages of pregnancy with internet-purchased poison. Behaviour described as highly unusual. Charged under s.58 OAPA 1861, however CoA reduced sentence to 3.5 years.

Front 29

Paton

Back 29

Foetus cannot have own right to life until birth, when they gain a separate existence from its mother.

Front 30

Paton v UK

Back 30

Interference with father's Article 8 ECHR right to a family life was justified under para (2) of Art 8, necessary for the protection of rights of another person.

Front 31

Vo v France

Back 31

No consensus on scientific and legal definition on beginning of life. Nothing in ECHR whether unborn child is person for purpose of Art 2. No violation.

Front 32

Montgomery

Back 32

Abortion Act does not respect women's autonomy. Leaves them dependent on doctors.

Front 33

Emily Jackson

Back 33

Given law respects women's autonomy in other contexts, not allowing abortions seems an anomaly.

Front 34

Law Commission

Back 34

No right of action for child against mother other than pre-natal injury caused by negligent driving of the mother.

Front 35

Attorney General's Reference

Back 35

Father stabbed mother. Argued foetus had no legal authority. CoA rejected. No requirement that victim was a person at time of act. Manslaughter could be established as father had committed unlawful/dangerous act likely to cause harm to child.

Front 36

CP v Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority

Back 36

Could child claim for mother's excessive drinking during pregnancy? No as child was not person in law when harmful act took place.

Front 37

Sally Sheldon

Back 37

Majority of doctors agree legal right to make abortion decisions better trusted to women concerned.

Front 38

Re C

Back 38

Baby Cotton UK's first commercial surrogacy. Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 quickly rushed through.

Front 39

Warnock Report

Back 39

Strong objections to surrogacy. Exploitative. Recommended criminalisation of surrogacy agencies.

Minority thought rare occasions where surrogacy is beneficial to people as last resort. Thought without regulation, couples may give up hope or just take bigger risks

Front 40

Brazier Report

Back 40

Less hostile to surrogacy. Concerned regulation should not endorse or encourage practice of surrogacy. Recommended leg including tightening rules on payment. Nothing implemented.

Front 41

Re TT

Back 41

DIY internet arrangement. Got ripped off, nothing they could do. Arrangement unenforceable.

Front 42

Bailey

Back 42

India is a popular destination due to cheap labour, highly qualified doctors, English language.

Front 43

Re D

Back 43

When reasonable steps taken to find surrogate, consent requirement can be dispensed.

Front 44

Re X&Y

Back 44

Paid Ukrainian surrogate significant amount. Agreed to authorise excessive remuneration to enable parental order despite unease at doing so.

Front 45

Gamble

Back 45

Many patients don't realise UK law applies to babies conceived abroad.

Front 46

C v S

Back 46

Guy tried to prevent GF from aborting. Argued capable of birth under 1929 Act. Experts rejected. Court said even if capable of being born, words in Paton would be considered closely.