Article info
PDFCurrent Controversy
The rebirth of medical paternalism: An NHS Trust v Y
- Correspondence to Professor Charles Foster, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3UL,UK; Charles.Foster{at}gtc.ox.ac.uk
Citation
The rebirth of medical paternalism: An NHS Trust v Y
Publication history
- Received August 14, 2018
- Revised August 27, 2018
- Accepted September 1, 2018
- First published October 9, 2018.
Online issue publication
December 13, 2018
Article Versions
- Previous version (9 October 2018).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Other content recommended for you
- It is never lawful or ethical to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness
- Withdrawing clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) in patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness: is there still a role for the courts?
- Withdrawing life-sustaining treatment: a stock-take of the legal and ethical position
- Causes and consequences of delays in treatment-withdrawal from PVS patients: a case study of Cumbria NHS Clinical Commissioning Group v Miss S and Ors [2016] EWCOP 32
- Not so new directions in the law of consent? Examining Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board
- When ‘Sanctity of Life’ and ‘Self-Determination’ clash: Briggs versus Briggs [2016] EWCOP 53 – implications for policy and practice
- Grounded ethical analysis
- ‘Bolam’ to ‘Montgomery’ is result of evolutionary change of medical practice towards ‘patient-centred care’
- Withdrawing treatment from patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness: the presumption in favour of the maintenance of life is legally robust
- Commentary on Charles Foster’s ‘The rebirth of medical paternalism: an NHS Trust v Y’