”Taking account of the views of the patient”, but only if the clinician (and the court) agrees!
”Taking account of the views of the patient”, but only if the clinician (and the court) agrees!
Unlike the first instance judgment in this case, the Court of Appeal decision in R (Burke) v General Medical Council has attracted little criticism. The majority of commentators appear to regard the outcome as unproblematic, almost an inevitable corollary to the first instance decision. This article will not follow the same path. Instead it will evaluate the impetus behind Leslie Burke's original claim and question the reasons why the first instance decision was so roundly rejected by the appeal court. Having considered the legal principles that underpin both judgments, it will conclude that Munby J accurately and sensitively depicted the plight of the applicant but that his judgment and its perceived implications were misinterpreted by some in the medical community whose passionate lobbying against it influenced not only the General Medical Council to bring the appeal, but also the court.
225-238
Biggs, Hazel
d0d08de6-6cae-4679-964c-eac653d7722b
June 2007
Biggs, Hazel
d0d08de6-6cae-4679-964c-eac653d7722b
Biggs, Hazel
(2007)
”Taking account of the views of the patient”, but only if the clinician (and the court) agrees!
Child and Family Law Quarterly, 19 (2), .
Abstract
Unlike the first instance judgment in this case, the Court of Appeal decision in R (Burke) v General Medical Council has attracted little criticism. The majority of commentators appear to regard the outcome as unproblematic, almost an inevitable corollary to the first instance decision. This article will not follow the same path. Instead it will evaluate the impetus behind Leslie Burke's original claim and question the reasons why the first instance decision was so roundly rejected by the appeal court. Having considered the legal principles that underpin both judgments, it will conclude that Munby J accurately and sensitively depicted the plight of the applicant but that his judgment and its perceived implications were misinterpreted by some in the medical community whose passionate lobbying against it influenced not only the General Medical Council to bring the appeal, but also the court.
Text
Burke_-_PUBLISHED_COPY.doc
- Accepted Manuscript
More information
Published date: June 2007
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 149197
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/149197
ISSN: 1358-8184
PURE UUID: 95446a73-8a50-4573-baaa-25ee04514d65
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 07 Jun 2010 15:39
Last modified: 14 Mar 2024 02:54
Export record
Contributors
Author:
Hazel Biggs
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics