|
Acknowledgements
|
xii
|
|
Table of cases
|
xiv
|
|
Table of statutes
|
xvii
|
|
Introduction: beginning the story
|
1
|
|
The pervasive influence of the criminal process
|
4
|
|
The relevance of ‘theatre’
|
7
|
|
A story and some themes
|
9
|
|
Tensions and transient connections: the lighthouse's beam
|
10
|
|
Theatrical distortion
|
10
|
|
(Political) liberalism
|
11
|
|
Moral sentiment and medical politics
|
11
|
|
Part I Setting the scene
|
13
|
|
1 Courtrooms, ‘physic’ and drama
|
15
|
|
The ‘criminal process’ and the regulation of medicine before 1858
|
16
|
|
The gruesome history of dissection
|
20
|
|
No peaceful burial place
|
22
|
|
Body snatching
|
23
|
|
Causes célèbres in the twentieth century: faulty connections?
|
25
|
|
Bourne: a reluctant ‘rebel’?
|
26
|
|
Bodkin Adams: ‘deserved to hang 20 times over’
|
30
|
|
R v. Arthur: framing bioethical debate
|
33
|
|
2 Crime, doctors and the body (politic)
|
38
|
|
Medical ‘assaults’
|
40
|
|
Rhetoric not reality
|
41
|
|
Bodily integrity, autonomy, self-determination
|
42
|
|
The tort of battery and criminal assault – one and the same?
|
43
|
|
‘Proper medical treatment or care’
|
45
|
|
Not wholly or solely ours
|
52
|
|
Is my body mine?
|
52
|
|
Kidneys for sale
|
53
|
|
Organ retention
|
55
|
|
Appropriate consent
|
57
|
|
Organ trafficking
|
61
|
|
3 From ‘theatre’ to the dock – via the mortuary
|
66
|
|
Serious wrongs
|
71
|
|
What makes wrongs ‘serious’?
|
72
|
|
‘Medical manslaughter’
|
73
|
|
Responsibility for medial error
|
75
|
|
Gross negligence, recklessness and manslaughter
|
77
|
|
Moral luck and a game of chance
|
79
|
|
Harm short of death
|
80
|
|
Serious but not ‘wrong’
|
82
|
|
Escaping from sanctity of life?
|
83
|
|
Part II Judges on the stage: case studies
|
93
|
|
4 Protecting life before birth?
|
95
|
|
Not a unique dilemma?
|
96
|
|
‘Proper medical treatment’
|
99
|
|
Protecting women: the power of the profession
|
101
|
|
Protection of morals and society
|
105
|
|
Protecting future children
|
106
|
|
Decriminalising abortion: a case study from Canada
|
109
|
|
Muddling through in England
|
114
|
|
Abortion and sanctity of life
|
118
|
|
5 Medical (and non-medical) ending of life
|
124
|
|
Criminal responsibility and the (ir)relevance of motivation
|
125
|
|
Killing with compassion: motive's role in attenuating the strict legal response to assisted dying cases
|
126
|
|
Intention, causation, the doctrine of double effect and the murky waters of the ‘doctor's defence’
|
133
|
|
Intention
|
133
|
|
Causation
|
135
|
|
Double effect and its application in the medical setting
|
135
|
|
The slipperiness of the central premise(s) of the ‘doctor's defence’: does the DDE have a place in the criminal law?
|
137
|
|
Does the DDE reflect medical practice at the end of life?
|
145
|
|
Implications for the criminal law and bioethics
|
145
|
|
The criminal law's differentiation between doctors and relatives: a ‘benign conspiracy’?
|
148
|
|
(Evading) the criminal law's role in cases of withdrawing life-sustaining treatment
|
152
|
|
Charades and prosceniums: it's all an act, but to what end?
|
159
|
|
6 Which twin lives?
|
163
|
|
Jodie and Mary (Gracie and Rosie)
|
164
|
|
The heart of the matter: the criminal process
|
165
|
|
Necessity and ‘self-defence’: a utilitarian calculus disguised
|
166
|
|
Conflict of duty
|
167
|
|
Designated for death
|
168
|
|
‘A very unique case’?
|
168
|
|
The rejected ‘defences’
|
169
|
|
Immunity and double effect
|
169
|
|
‘Monstrous births’
|
172
|
|
Stillborn or a tumour?
|
174
|
|
Withdrawing life support
|
176
|
|
Part III Bioethics and the criminal law: connecting performances?
|
179
|
|
7 Drawing connections: moral philosophy, (political) liberalism, responsibility and the theatre of interpretation
|
181
|
|
Bioethics, moral philosophy and law
|
183
|
|
The criminal law, moral philosophy and introducing (political) liberalism
|
187
|
|
The ‘common morality’ and political liberalism
|
195
|
|
Responsibility in bioethics and criminal law
|
199
|
|
The theatre of interpretation
|
209
|
|
Moving from broader connections between bioethics and criminal law to more specific links
|
216
|
|
8 Parallels and disconnects: bioethical principles, principles of criminalisation and the rule of law
|
217
|
|
Principlism in bioethics
|
219
|
|
Principles of criminalisation
|
223
|
|
Parallels and disconnects between the ‘four principles’ in bioethics and principles of criminalisation
|
224
|
|
Nonmaleficence
|
224
|
|
Beneficence
|
230
|
|
Autonomy
|
237
|
|
(Liberal) justice
|
245
|
|
Connections between the four principles and the rule of law
|
247
|
|
Can principles of bioethics and the criminal law work together? Are they compatible?
|
250
|
|
Concluding thoughts: a story part told?
|
255
|
|
Theatrical distortions
|
257
|
|
Culture, medicine and public sentiment
|
259
|
|
Medicine framing the criminal process’ response: promoting a dialogue?
|
260
|
|
References
|
264
|
|
Index
|
284
|
