Is the legal protection that is given to the expression of Abrahamic religious belief adequate or appropriate in the context of English medical law? This is the central question that is explored in the thesis. A framework to support judges in the resolution of contentious cases that involve dissension between religious belief and medical law is developed from Alan Gewirth’s Principle of Generic Consistency (PGC). This framework is applied to a number of medical law cases studies: the principle of double effect, ritual male circumcision, female genital mutilation, Jehovah’s Witnesses (adults and children) who refuse blood transfusions, and conscientious objection of healthcare professionals to abortion. The thesis also examines the legal and religious contexts in which these contentious cases are arbitrated. It demonstrates how human rights law and the proposed framework can provide a gauge to measure competing rights and apply legitimate limits to the expression of religious belief, where appropriate. Thus, the original and significant contribution to knowledge is the development of an evaluative framework and its application to distinct case studies. This leads to the conclusion, based upon a stance of principled pragmatism, that some aspects of current legal protections in English medical law require amendment.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:bl.uk/oai:ethos.bl.uk:709748 |
| Date | January 2017 |
| Creators | O'Neill, Clayton Bernard |
| Publisher | Durham University |
| Source Sets | Ethos UK |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Electronic Thesis or Dissertation |
| Source | http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/12050/ |
Page generated in 0.0023 seconds