Canada has recently published a new Clinical Practice Guideline on the diagnosis and management of brain death. It states that consent is not necessary to carry out the interventions required to make the diagnosis. A supporting article not only sets out the arguments for this but also contends that ‘UK laws similarly carve out an exception, excusing clinicians from a prima facie duty to get consent’. This is supplemented by the claim that recent court decisions in the UK similarly confirm (...) that consent is not required, referencing two judgements inBattersbee. We disagree with the authors’ interpretation of the law on consent in the UK and argue that there is nothing inBattersbeeto support the conclusion that consent to testing is not necessary. Where there is a disagreement about testing for brain death in the UK, court authorisation is required. (shrink)

In her interesting paper on cross-jurisdictional legal approaches to brain death, Ariane Lewis considers whether informed consent is required for DNC testing in the UK, and proposes that it is not...

The decision of the House of Lords in Gillick v West Norfolk Area Health Authority carved out a safe space for competent minors to confidentially access sexual and reproductive health care and advice in the UK. Ireland is one of the few common law jurisdictions that has not endorsed Gillick or a similar mature minor doctrine, nor has it securely legislated for the right to consent of those aged 16 and 17 years. The legal lacuna created by this deficiency has (...) left young persons in Ireland seeking sexual and reproductive healthcare, and the clinicians who provide this, in a challenging place. While this void has been partially filled with policy statements by bodies such as the Irish College of General Practitioners and the Health Service Executive, nonetheless the legal shortcomings leave both a sense of insecurity, and real world difficulties for adolescents seeking to access to sexual and reproductive healthcare. (shrink)

The Cayman Turtle Farm is the only facility in the world that commercially produces green sea turtles for human consumption. The CTF has operated at a significant financial loss for much of its 45 years history and is maintained by substantial Cayman Island Government subsidies. These subsidies run into millions of Caymanian dollars and dwarf the funding allocated to The Caymanian Department of Environment to protect its unique biodiversity each year. We argue that it is time for the CTF to (...) terminate its sea turtle ‘farming’ initiative. Supporters argue that the CTF helps to conserve green turtles by providing legal and sustainable turtle meat for local Caymanian consumption. Opponents maintain that farmed turtle meat cannot serve as an effective economically viable substitute, and that the facility potentially harms Caribbean green turtle populations by promoting turtle meat consumption, when other Caribbean nations increasingly prohibit this practice. The CTF’s records demonstrate that commercial production has come at the expense of tens of thousands of sea turtles. We question the ethics of sea turtle farming and argue that the CTF could better contribute to conservation if it transitioned into a rehabilitation, research and education facility . Recommended first steps include prohibiting the sale of sea turtle products to international tourists, engaging with stakeholders, and assessing the true scale of local consumer demand for green turtle meat. (shrink)