Axiological Pluralism: Conflict in the Hospital, Resolution in the Courts

Roger Brownsword*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Where the ethical differences in a community go deep, to matters of first principle, how are the conflicts implicit in such axiological pluralism to be handled? In particular, how are the risks arising from a perceived legitimacy deficit to be managed? This chapter outlines a number of possible responses to these questions and, then, with the focus on three recent appeals to the UK Supreme Court (namely, the decisions in Montgomery, James, and Doogan), it offers some reflections on the role and responsibilities of the courts when faced with conflicts of this kind.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationIus Gentium
PublisherSpringer Science and Business Media B.V.
Pages125-148
Number of pages24
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2021

Publication series

NameIus Gentium
Volume92
ISSN (Electronic)2214-9902

Keywords

  • Axiological pluralism
  • Compromise medicalisation
  • Deliberative democracy
  • Legitimacy deficit
  • Medical law and ethics

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Axiological Pluralism: Conflict in the Hospital, Resolution in the Courts'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this