Medical Law as Applied to Neonatal Surgery

Chapter

Abstract

Medical law as applied to neonatal surgery, when considered in terms of the number of requests for legal or ethical opinions, is mainly concerned with the withdrawal or withholding of treatment. However, this must be placed into the context of the chronological opportunities for law to intervene in clinical care. For that reason alone, this chapter commences with the unborn child, passing through the stage of birth, initial decisions on viability (and acquiring a legal parent); before progressing to the ‘baby cases’, and subsequent guidance when considering the withdrawal of care in neonatal surgery.

Keywords

Ethics Medical law Neonatal surgery Paediatric surgery 

References

  1. 1.
    Becker v Schwartz NE 2d 807 NY, 1978.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    E.g. Schirmer v Mt Auburn Obstetric and Gynaecologic Associates Inc 802 NE 2d 723, 2003.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Scott R. Prenatal screening, autonomy and reasons: the relationship between the law of abortion and wrongful birth. Med Law Rev. 2003;11:265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McLelland v Greater Glasgow Health Board. SC. 1999:305.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Critical care decisions in fetal and neonatal medicine: ethical issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics; 2006.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Children Act 1989 s 3(1).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Legitimacy Act 1976 s2.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    For a full account see Bainham A, ‘Children: The Modern Law’. Family law. Bristol: Jordan Publishing; 2005.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R v Arthur. BMLR. 1981;12:1–30.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gunn MJ, Smith JC. Arthur’s case and the right to life of a Down’s syndrome child. Criminal Law Rev. 1985:705–15.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mason JK, Laurie GT. Mason and McCall Smith’s law and medical ethics. Oxford: OUP; 2011. p. 15–6.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carman D. No Ordinary Man; A Life of George Carman. London: Hodder & Stoughton; 2002. p. 111.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    The Times. 6th October 1981:1.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R v Arthur. BMLR. 1981;12:21–2.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    In Re C (A Minor) (No 1). Med LR. 1989;1:46–51.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    In Re C (A Minor) (No 1). Med LR. 1989;1:48.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bainham A. Children: the modern law. Family law, Bristol; 2005. p. 336.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Re J (A Minor) CA. Med LR.1990;2:67–76.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Re J (A Minor) CA. Med LR. 1990;2:67.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wells C, et al. An unsuitable case for treatment. New Law J. 1990;140:1544.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Re C (A Minor). Medical Treatment-Refusal of parental consent. Med LR. 1997;8:166–74.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bainham A. Children: the modern law. Family law. Bristol; 2005. p. 340.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Re A (Children). Conjoined twins: surgical separation. FLR. 2001;1:1.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bainham A. Children: the modern law. Family law. Bristol; 2005. p. 343.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Children Act 1989 Section 1 (1).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Withholding or withdrawing life sustaining treatment in children. 2nd ed. London: RCPCH; 2004.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Clinical Law, Wessex Regional Centre for Paediatric SurgerySouthampton University Hospitals Trust, University Hospital of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations