• Login
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
    The Role of the family in cases of disputed medical decision making 
    •   QMRO Home
    • Queen Mary University of London Theses
    • Theses
    • The Role of the family in cases of disputed medical decision making
    •   QMRO Home
    • Queen Mary University of London Theses
    • Theses
    • The Role of the family in cases of disputed medical decision making
    ‌
    ‌

    Browse

    All of QMROCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects
    ‌
    ‌

    Administrators only

    Login
    ‌
    ‌

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    The Role of the family in cases of disputed medical decision making

    View/Open
    HILDERRoleOfTheFamily2009.pdf (1.313Mb)
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    This doctoral thesis considers the family’s role in the process of making medical treatment decisions for one of its members. Chapter 1 explores the meaning of family in the context of illness and disability. It is suggested that membership is not defined by biological or marital status but by interdependence, which also provides the moral and logical claim for a role of influence in treatment decisions. Chapter 2 considers various ethical frameworks for development of an inclusive decision-making framework, using fictional case studies. Chapter 3 examines the historical development of the legal framework for the resolution of treatment disputes revealing the ‘invention’ of a common law jurisdiction in respect of adults lacking capacity in order to meet perceived social need. Chapter 4 examines the unifying concept of the various jurisdictions in respect of adults and children, namely the patient’s ‘best interests’. Decided cases are categorised by their principal issue to demonstrate that the judicial concept of best interests has been shaped by core values intrinsic to those issues, leaving consideration of the interdependence inherent in the family context side-lined. That such disregard is not a necessary corollary of the mechanisms adopted for decision-making is shown by comparison with later cases of paternity testing disputes. Chapter 5 traces the last throes of the inherent jurisdiction through political engagement and the Bournewood litigation. Finally chapter 6 assesses the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. It is argued that, although the statutory test of ‘best interests’ is susceptible to familyfriendly considerations, the general authority limits involvement of families to trivial matters.
    Authors
    Hilder, Carolyn Hayley Jane
    URI
    https://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/474
    Collections
    • Theses [3702]
    Copyright statements
    The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author
    Twitter iconFollow QMUL on Twitter
    Twitter iconFollow QM Research
    Online on twitter
    Facebook iconLike us on Facebook
    • Site Map
    • Privacy and cookies
    • Disclaimer
    • Accessibility
    • Contacts
    • Intranet
    • Current students

    Modern Slavery Statement

    Queen Mary University of London
    Mile End Road
    London E1 4NS
    Tel: +44 (0)20 7882 5555

    © Queen Mary University of London.