Bibliographic Details
| Title: |
Hidden Law-Making in the Province of Medical Jurisprudence. |
| Authors: |
Montgomery, Jonathan, Jones, Caroline, Biggs, Hazel |
| Superior Title: |
Modern Law Review. May2014, Vol. 77 Issue 3, p343-378. 36p. |
| Subject Terms: |
*MEDICAL ethics, *JUDGE-made law, *CONSTITUTIONAL law, *FORENSIC medicine, *LAW & ethics, *PARLIAMENTARY sovereignty |
| Geographic Terms: |
EUROPEAN Union countries |
| Abstract: |
Judges articulate their role in controversial cases of medical ethics in terms of deference to Parliament, lest their personal morality be improperly brought to bear. This hides a wide range of law-making activities, as parliamentary sovereignty is diffused by 'intermediate law-makers', and judicial activity is more subtle than the deference account implies. The nature of litigation raises questions about the contributions of other legal personnel and also the nature of the parties' interests in test-cases. While judges demonstrate an awareness of some of these issues and anxiety about the constitutional legitimacy of their work, a more nuanced account is needed of their proper role. This may be built on Austin's theory of tacit legislation. It may draw from human rights law. However, considerable work is required before the complexities of hidden law-making can be properly incorporated into the province of medical jurisprudence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|
Copyright of Modern Law Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| Database: |
Academic Search Premier |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests. |
Login for full access.
|