COVID-19 continues to dominate 2020 and is likely to be a feature of our lives for some time to come. Given this, how should health systems respond ethically to the persistent challenges of responding to the ongoing impact of the pandemic? Relatedly, what ethical values should underpin the resetting of health services after the initial wave, knowing that local spikes and further waves now seem inevitable? In this editorial, we outline some of the ethical challenges confronting those running health services (...) as they try to resume non-COVID-related services, and the downstream ethical implications these have for healthcare professionals’ day-to-day decision making. This is a phase of recovery, resumption and renewal; a form of reset for health services.1 This reset phase will define the ‘new normal' for healthcare delivery, and it offers an opportunity to reimagine and change services for the better. There are difficulties, however, healthcare systems are already weakened by austerity and the first wave of COVID-19 and remain under stress as the pandemic continues. The reset period is operating alongside, rather than at the end, of the pandemic and this creates difficult ethical choices. ### Balancing the greater good with individual care Pandemics—and public health emergencies more generally—reinforce approaches to ethics that emphasise or derive from the interests of communities, rather than those grounded in the claims of the autonomous individual. The response has been to draw on more public health focused ethics, ‘if demand outstrips the ability to deliver to existing standards, more strictly utilitarian considerations will have to be applied, and decisions about how to meet the individual's need will give way to decisions about how to maximise overall benefit’.2 Alongside this, effective …. (shrink)

Volume 25, Issue 3, September 2019, Page 203-206.

Is conscientious objection necessarily incompatible with the role and duties of a healthcare professional? An influential minority of writers on the subject think that it is. Here, we outline...

Until 2008, if doctors followed the General Medical Council's (GMC's) guidance on providing information prior to obtaining a patient's consent to treatment, they would be going beyond what was technically required by the law. It was hoped that the common law would catch up with this guidance and encourage respect for patients' autonomy by facilitating informed decision-making. Regrettably, this has not occurred. For once, the law's inability to keep up with changing medical practice and standards is not the problem. The (...) authors argue that while the common law has moved forward and started to recognise the importance of patient autonomy and informed decision-making, the GMC has taken a step back in their 2008 guidance on consent. Indeed, doctors are now required to tell their patients less than they were in 1998 when the last guidance was produced. This is an unfortunate development and the authors urge the GMC to revisit their guidance. (shrink)

Whenever the legitimacy of a new or ethically contentious medical intervention is considered, a range of influences will determine whether the treatment becomes accepted as lawful medical treatment. The development and introduction of abortion, organ donation, gender reassignment, and non-therapeutic cosmetic surgery have, for example, all raised ethical, legal, and clinical issues. This book examines the various factors that legitimatise a medical procedure. Bringing together a range of internationally and nationally recognised academics from law, philosophy, medicine, health, economics, and sociology, (...) the book explores the notion of a treatment, practice, or procedure being proper medical treatment, and considers the range of diverse factors which might influence the acceptance of a particular procedure as appropriate in the medical context. Contributors address such issues as clinical judgement and professional autonomy, the role of public interest, and the influence of resource allocation in decision-making. In doing so, the book explores how the law, the medical profession, and the public interact in determining whether a new or ethically contentious procedure should be regarded as legitimate. This book will be of interest and use to researchers and students of bioethics, medical law, criminal law, and the sociology of medicine. (shrink)

We have been researching the distinctive ethical issues raised by what we have called “the reset period,” when non-Covid services resumed alongside the continuing pandemic in the UK. In this commen...

In this paper we argue that while individual private interests such as autonomy and the need for a medical procedure or treatment are important in the provision and delivery of health care and the utilization of biotechnologies, these concepts need to be balanced with other interests such that in certain situations they do not take priority. We use as an example a particular developing biotechnology, xenotransplantation, to suggest that interest in the health of the public is such that this biotechnology (...) should not be permitted to move to the clinical trial stage because of the particular risk of harm it poses to the potential xeno-recipient, their close contacts and the wider population. This is despite the interest of those in need of a transplant in allowing such clinical trials to proceed. We derive support for our position from John Stuart Mill's harm principle. (shrink)

Health and health care are vitally important to all of us, and academic interest in the law regulating health has, over the last 50 years, become an important field of academic study. An analysis of the development of, changes in, and scope of Health Law and Ethics to date, is both timely and of interest to students and scholars alike, along with an exploration of its likely future development. This work brings together contributions from leading and emerging scholars in the (...) field. Each contributor has been invited to select and analyse a 'leading work', which has for them shed light on the way that Health Law and Ethics has developed. The chapters are both autobiographical, reflecting upon the works that have proved significant to contributors, and also critical analyses of the current state of the field. This collection also includes a specially written Introduction and Conclusion, which critically reflect upon the development of Health Law and Ethics and its likely future developments in the light of the reflections by contributors on their chosen leading works. The book will be of interest to students, teachers and researchers in Health Law and Ethics, as it provides critical discussions and assessments of some of the leading scholarship in the field. (shrink)

The Human Tissue Act 2004 is designed to regulate the storage and use of organs and tissues from the living, and the removal, storage and use of the same material from the deceased. It repeals much criticized legislation, including the Human Tissue Act 1961, and establishes a Human Tissue Authority to ensure compliance with the Act via a licensing and monitoring regime. When the Act comes into force, probably in April 2006, it will be a criminal offence not to comply (...) with certain provisions of the Act, and a new offence of DNA 'theft' will be introduced. Importantly, the Act places consent at the centre of the system, both from the living and from or on behalf of the deceased. (shrink)