Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

"The question of whether and how decisions are made in respect of a child's medical treatment has become a matter of significant public controversy following the highly publicised cases of Charlie Gard (Great Ormond Street Hospital v Yates [2017]) and Alfie Evans (Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust v Evans et al [2018]). In light of this background, this timely collection brings together commentators from law, medical ethics and clinical medicine, actively drawing on the view from the clinic as well as philosophical, legal and sociological perspectives on the crucial question of who should decide about the fate of a child suffering from a serious illness. In particular, the collection looks at whether the current 'best interests' threshold is the appropriate boundary for legal intervention, or whether it is appropriate to adopt the 'risk of significant harm' approach proposed in Yates. Moreover, it explores the respective roles of parents, doctors and the courts and the possible risks of inappropriate state intrusion in parental decision-making, and how we might address them"

Children with disabilities - Medical care - Law and legislation - Great Britain --- Parent and child (Law) - Great Britain --- Euthanasia - Law and legislation - Great Britain --- Royaume-Uni --- Medicine: general issues --- parental rights; philosophical perspectives; child; serious illness; legal perspectives; sociological perspectives --- Children with disabilities --- Parent and child (Law) --- Euthanasia

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

This book describes the expansion of EU power in health care and public health and analyses the implications of this expansion on EU health values and rights. The main conclusion of the book is that the EU is de facto balancing fundamental rights and values relating to health, implicitly taking on obligations for safeguarding fundamental rights in the field of health and affecting individuals’ rights sometimes without an explicit legal competence to do so. This brings to light instances where EU health policy has implications for fundamental rights and values without the possibility to challenge the exercise of power of the EU in human health. This begs the question of whether subsidiarity is still the most relevant legal principle for the division of powers and tasks among the Member States, particularly when EU policy and law involves the politically sensitive areas of health care and public health. This question draws out the parameter for continuing the debate on the role of the European Union in promoting its own values and the wellbeing of its peoples, in light of its ever-growing role in human health issues.

Public health laws --- Medical laws and legislation --- Medical care --- Medical policy --- Political planning --- Health care policy --- Health policy --- Medicine and state --- Policy, Medical --- Public health --- Public health policy --- State and medicine --- Science and state --- Social policy --- Delivery of health care --- Delivery of medical care --- Health care --- Health care delivery --- Health services --- Healthcare --- Medical and health care industry --- Medical services --- Personal health services --- Law, Medical --- Medical personnel --- Medical registration and examination --- Medicine --- Physicians --- Surgeons --- Medical jurisprudence --- Communicable diseases --- Law and legislation --- Government policy --- Legal status, laws, etc. --- European Union countries --- Economic integration. --- Economic integration --- Public health laws - European Union countries --- Medical laws and legislation - European Union countries --- Medical care - Law and legislation - European Union countries --- Medical policy - European Union countries --- Political planning - European Union countries --- European Union countries - Economic integration