Includes bibliographical references and index. Smith S. W., et al. (Eds.). (2017). Ethical judgments: re-writing medical law. Portland: Hart Publishing.

Introduction--medicine in the courtroom; judges, ethics and the law -- Re A (conjoined twins: surgical separation) -- R (on the application of axon) v secretary of the state for health -- airedale NHS trust v bland -- R v human fertilisation ang embryology authority, ex parte blood -- Bolitho v Hackney health authority -- R v bourne -- Chester v Ashfar -- R (on the application of Nicklinson and another) v ministry of justice -- St George's healthcare NHS trust v S -- Conclusion--medical law written?

This edited collection is designed to explore the ethical nature of judicial decision-making, particularly relating to cases in the health/medical sphere, where judges are often called upon to issue rulings on questions containing an explicit ethical component. However, judges do not receive any specific training in ethical decision-making, and often disown many place for ethics in their decision-making. Consequently, decisions made by judges do not present consistent or robust ethical theory, even when cases appear to rely on moral claims.