Nursing Law and Ethics

(Marcin) #1

  1. Family Law Reform Act 1969, section 8;Gillickv.West Norfolk and Wisbech Area
    Health Authority[1986] AC 112.

  2. DoH Guidelines, 1991, para 4.1±2.

  3. Para 4.4. See also Nicolson, R. *1985)Medical Research on Children.OUP, Oxford.

  4. British Paediatric Association *1992)Guidelines for the Ethical Conduct of Research
    Involving Children.British Paediatric Association, London.

  5. See footnote 5 above.

  6. CIOMS Commentary on Guideline 14 *see footnote 5).

  7. See McHale, J. & Fox, M. with Murphy, J. *1997)Health Care Law: Text and Materials,
    pp. 583±4. Sweet and Maxwell, London.

  8. See footnote 5 above.

  9. For the position in Scotland, see the Adults with Incapacity *Scotland) Act 2000.
    88.Fv.West Berkshire Area Health Authority[1989] 3 All ER 545; see further Chapter 7A.

  10. See McHale, J. & Fox, M. with Murphy, J. *1997)Health Care Law: Text and Materials,
    pp. 589±93. Sweet and Maxwell, London.

  11. Law Commission *1995)Mental Incapacity,Law Com. 231, paras 6.29±6.36.

  12. Lord Chancellor's Department,Who decides? Making decisions on behalf of mentally
    incompetent patients,Consultation Paper, December 1997, para 5.41; LCD,Making
    Decisions: The Government's proposals for making decisions on behalf of mentally inca-
    pacitated adults,October 1999.

  13. McHale, J. *1998) Mental incapacity: Some proposals for legislative reform.Journal of
    Medical Ethics24, 322, 325.

  14. Guideline 17 of the CIOMS guidance, currently under revision *see footnote 5 above)
    provides that `Researchers and ethical review committees should ensure that
    prospective subjects who are pregnant are adequately informed about the risk and
    benefits to themselves, their pregnancies and their potential offspring'. However, it
    stresses that in principle there is no difference between this situation and the usual
    difficulty of making risk±benefit determinations for non-pregnant women, and that
    the ultimate decision is a matter for the woman.

  15. DoH Guidelines, 1991, para 3.16.

  16. Reported by The Associated Press, May 17, 2000, available on http://www.my.aol.com/news

  17. MRC *2000)Good Research Practice,Medical Research Council, London.

  18. Fox, M. *1998) Research bodies: feminist perspectives on clinical research. InFeminist
    Perspectives in Health Care Law,pp. 122±3. Cavendish, London.

  19. DES was a drug first prescribed in America in 1943, in the hope that it would avert
    miscarriages. Its efficacy was challenged as early as 1953, and by 1971 the FDA had
    banned its use during pregnancy after substantial evidence that it was associated with
    high rates of cervical cancer in the daughters of DES users.

  20. Department of Health Guidelines, para 4.5.

  21. See further, Chapter 7.

  22. Merton, V. 1993) The exclusion of pregnant, pregnable, and once-pregnable patients
    aka women) from biomedical research.American Journal of Law and Medicine,12,



  23. See further, Chapter 6.

  24. On the limitations of these discretionary payments, see Barton, J.M.et al.*1995)
    The compensation of patients injured in clinical trials.Journal of Medical Ethics,
    21, 166.

  25. Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury, Cmnd
    7054, 1978: para. 1341.

  26. Gillon, R. *1992) No-fault compensation for victims of non-therapeutic research ±
    should government continue to be exempt?Journal of Medical Ethics,18, 59.


276 Nursing Law and Ethics

Free download pdf