How should autonomy be defined in medical negligence cases?

Purshouse, Craig ORCID: 0000-0002-0432-119X (2015) How should autonomy be defined in medical negligence cases? Clinical Ethics, 10 (4). pp. 107-114.

Text How Should Autonomy be Defined in Medical Negligence Cases.docx - Unspecified Download (33kB)

Abstract

<jats:p> In modern law medical paternalism no longer rules. Respect for patient autonomy is now a fundamental principle of both medical law and bioethics. As a result of these developments, and cases such as Rees v Darlington Memorial NHS Trust and Chester v Afshar, there have been suggestions that the law of clinical negligence should be developed so as to recognise diminished autonomy as a form of actionable damage in this area of tort law. Yet in order for the tort of negligence to recognise this new interest, it is first necessary to determine how autonomy should be understood in this context. The purpose of this article is to shed light on this issue and arrive at a suitable definition of the concept. After outlining the different theories of autonomy it is argued that the traditional liberal (current desire) definition is the most philosophically and legally coherent. </jats:p>

Item Type:	Article
Depositing User:	Symplectic Admin
Date Deposited:	21 Apr 2016 10:05
Last Modified:	17 Dec 2022 01:45
DOI:	10.1177/1477750915604104
Related URLs:	Publisher
URI:	https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/id/eprint/3000514