Hidden Law-Making in the Province of Medical Jurisprudence

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', an...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Published in:	Modern law review 2014-05, Vol.77 (3), p.343-378
Main Authors:	Montgomery, Jonathan, Jones, Caroline, Biggs, Hazel
Format:	Article
Language:	eng
Subjects:	Attorneys Embryology Forensic medicine Government regulation Human rights International humanitarian law Judges Jurisprudence Law reform law-making Legislative process Legitimacy Litigation Medical ethics Medical jurisprudence medical law Morality Parliaments Regulatory legislation soft law Statutory law
Online Access:	Get full text
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

Description
Summary:	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.
ISSN:	0026-7961 1468-2230