当前位置:
X-MOL 学术
›
Curr. Leg. Probl.
›
论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Patient No Longer? What Next in Healthcare Law?
Current Legal Problems ( IF 1.529 ) Pub Date : 2017-01-01 , DOI: 10.1093/clp/cux006 Jonathan Montgomery
Current Legal Problems ( IF 1.529 ) Pub Date : 2017-01-01 , DOI: 10.1093/clp/cux006 Jonathan Montgomery
A series of Supreme Court decisions since 2013 have revisited the fundamental principles of healthcare and medical law established during the 1980s in which the Bolam test became pre-eminent. These decisions represent a watershed and suggest that a reorientation is underway, in which the law is reducing the significance of the status of patients in favour of greater recognition of the human rights of health service users as citizens. Aintree (2013) suggests that respect for professional expertise probably remains intact, but its scope is expressly limited by Montgomery (2015). That case purports to bring the law’s understanding of patients into the modern era, although a close examination reveals that the analysis is deeply flawed. The Supreme Court Justices have shown an intent to give greater scope for human rights arguments, although the basis for this, as yet, lacks a clear rationale or coherence. Montgomery claims to be a radical departure from the previous orthodoxy and suggests a need to revisit many earlier cases. The human rights turn not only alters the doctrines that underpin the law affecting healthcare, but also provides a basis for the courts to assert jurisdiction. While the European Court of Human Rights has developed jurisprudence that defers to a margin of appreciation for democratic legislatures, Nicklinson (2014) shows the UK Supreme Court asserting its authority over Parliament and may indicate that the boundaries of healthcare law are being redrawn. A v N CCG (2017) seems to continue some features of the traditional approach, but R (A & B) v Sec State for Health (2017) confirms Article 8 of the ECHR as a limiting factor, while Doogan (2014) seems to limit its scope in healthcare law (in favour of being able to balance human rights issues through employment law). Together, these developments may represent a profound shift in the constitution of healthcare law.
中文翻译:
病人不再?医疗保健法的下一步是什么?
自 2013 年以来,最高法院的一系列裁决重新审视了 1980 年代确立的医疗保健和医疗法的基本原则,其中 Bolam 测试成为卓越。这些决定代表了一个分水岭,表明正在进行重新定位,其中法律正在降低患者地位的重要性,以支持更多地承认医疗服务使用者作为公民的人权。Aintree (2013) 认为对专业知识的尊重可能保持不变,但其范围受到 Montgomery (2015) 的明确限制。该案旨在将法律对患者的理解带入现代,尽管仔细检查会发现该分析存在严重缺陷。最高法院的法官们已经表现出为人权争论提供更大范围的意图,尽管这方面的依据目前还缺乏明确的理由或连贯性。蒙哥马利声称彻底背离了以前的正统观念,并建议需要重新审视许多早期的案例。人权转向不仅改变了支持影响医疗保健的法律的原则,而且还为法院主张管辖权提供了基础。虽然欧洲人权法院已经制定了尊重民主立法机构的判例,但尼克林森 (2014) 表明英国最高法院主张其对议会的权威,并可能表明医疗保健法的界限正在重新划定。A v N CCG (2017) 似乎延续了传统方法的某些特征,但 R (A & B) v Sec State for Health (2017) 确认 ECHR 第 8 条是一个限制因素,而 Doogan (2014) 似乎限制了其在医疗保健法中的范围(有利于能够通过就业法平衡人权问题)。总之,这些发展可能代表了医疗保健法构成的深刻转变。
更新日期:2017-01-01
中文翻译:
病人不再?医疗保健法的下一步是什么?
自 2013 年以来,最高法院的一系列裁决重新审视了 1980 年代确立的医疗保健和医疗法的基本原则,其中 Bolam 测试成为卓越。这些决定代表了一个分水岭,表明正在进行重新定位,其中法律正在降低患者地位的重要性,以支持更多地承认医疗服务使用者作为公民的人权。Aintree (2013) 认为对专业知识的尊重可能保持不变,但其范围受到 Montgomery (2015) 的明确限制。该案旨在将法律对患者的理解带入现代,尽管仔细检查会发现该分析存在严重缺陷。最高法院的法官们已经表现出为人权争论提供更大范围的意图,尽管这方面的依据目前还缺乏明确的理由或连贯性。蒙哥马利声称彻底背离了以前的正统观念,并建议需要重新审视许多早期的案例。人权转向不仅改变了支持影响医疗保健的法律的原则,而且还为法院主张管辖权提供了基础。虽然欧洲人权法院已经制定了尊重民主立法机构的判例,但尼克林森 (2014) 表明英国最高法院主张其对议会的权威,并可能表明医疗保健法的界限正在重新划定。A v N CCG (2017) 似乎延续了传统方法的某些特征,但 R (A & B) v Sec State for Health (2017) 确认 ECHR 第 8 条是一个限制因素,而 Doogan (2014) 似乎限制了其在医疗保健法中的范围(有利于能够通过就业法平衡人权问题)。总之,这些发展可能代表了医疗保健法构成的深刻转变。