![handle is hein.journals/medclint13 and id is 1 raw text is:
MEDICAL LAW
Editorial INTERNATIONAL
Medical Law International
13(I) 3-5
Special 20th anniversary The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
issue of M edical Law sagepub.co.u/journasPermnissi .av
issu ofM edcalLawDOI: I10.1I177/0968533213478648
Inter ational: ' tmli.sagepub.com
O'Best SAGE
interests in an age of
human rights'
David Gurnham
University of Southampton, UK
This special issue to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Medical Law International seeks
to address the challenges posed by two core values of medical law, the relationship
between which is at best uneasy and at times arguably one of the incompatibilities. When
is it appropriate for medical practitioners to treat according to their professional view of a
patient's 'best interests', and when must this give way to the 'rights' of patients or their
families to dictate a different course? In England and Wales, 2013 also marks 20 years
since the landmark judgment of Re C (adult: refusal of treatment) [ 1994] 1 All ER 819,1
which established that a competent patient's right to refuse treatment must prevail over
clinical views of their best interests, and Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] 1 All ER
831, establishing that a permanently vegetative patient may be allowed to die as contin-
ued life could be judged no longer to be in his 'best interests'. Both of these judgments
have impacted on English law in ways that have only intensified since the enactment of
the Human Right Act 1998 and the incorporation of the European Convention on Human
Rights into domestic law. For example, should mature minors enjoy the same to deter-
mine their own 'interests' as adults?; how is the enforceability of a right to refuse life-
saving treatment to be reconciled with criminal laws that prohibit apparently unwise or
potentially harmful behaviours notwithstanding the 'victim's' consent?; what is the
precise relationship between the lawfulness of withdrawing life-sustaining treatment and
1. The judgment was handed down a year earlier.
Corresponding author:
David Gurnham, School of Law, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO 17 I BJ, UK.
Email: D.Gurnham@soton.ac.uk](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/medclint13&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most