Medical Law Assignment Sample

Running head: MEDICAL LAW ASSIGNMENT
Medical Law assignment
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1MEDICAL LAW ASSIGNMENT
Introduction
In the field of healthcare and ethics, the principle of autonomy (self-determination) and
the principle ‘best interest’ are considered to be the most fundamental and universally accepted
medical law principles. These principles are based on the prerequisite of any medical
intervention, which requires a medical professional to obtain the consent of the patient before
undergoing any medical treatment on the patient1. The principle of autonomy or self-
determination of a patient upholds the right of a patient not to suffer any inhuman, degrading
treatment or any form of torture. The deprivation of the patient from giving his or her consent in
the medical treatment contravenes such right. In regards to the principle of best interest, given
the circumstances that exist between a doctor and a patient, the doctor is entitled to give consent
on behalf of the patient to perform the treatment if the patient lacks capacity to give consent to
such treatment. This consent given by the medical practitioners are perceived as consent given
for the best interest of the patients. This essay explains the concept of ‘best interest’ in medical
law and its significance in the context of refusal to or consent to medical treatment by patients
with capacity as well as patients lacking capacity2. The paper further highlights the importance of
consent of patients for medical treatment and that the absence of consent amounts to medical
negligence that is inconsistent with the ‘best interest’ principle in the context of English medical
law.
Best interest principle
1Knoppers, Bartha Maria, Yann Joly, and Vasiliki Rahimzadeh. "Introduction." Routledge Handbook of Medical
Law and Ethics. Routledge, 2014. 13-20.
2 Hall, Mark A., et al. Health care law and ethics. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2018.

2MEDICAL LAW ASSIGNMENT
While a competent adult is capable of giving consent to a medical treatment as well as the
adult person is capable of refusing medical treatment if he or she considers that such treatment is
contrary to the his or her best interest. The English laws usually regulate the consent of the
patients with permanent or acute incapacity, minors, patients with mental illness and minors.
However, such decision regarding medical treatment taken on behalf of the above-mentioned
patients must be taken in their best interest, which they would have taken themselves if they had
the capacity3.
In Re F 2 WLR 1025 (HL)4, best interest was stated to be used as a standard for making
decisions on behalf of a patient that lacks capacity to give consent to the medical treatment. In
the Mental Capacity Act [2005] (the Act), section 1(5)5 stipulates the concept of best interest
principle as a decision made or an act done on behalf of an adult who lacked capacity and that
such decision taken on their behalf must be in their best interest. Such decision may include
health, social care and financial decisions. In order to determine whether the decision taken on
behalf of the adult patient lacking capacity is taken in his bets interest, the following factors must
be taken into consideration as set out in the Act. Firstly, the decision is based on the present and
past wishes of the patients; secondly, values and beliefs that would have led to the same decision,
if the patient had capacity to decide. Lastly, any other relevant factors may be taken into
consideration while making such decision to ensure that it is the best interest of the patient6.
The application of best interest principle is common when the patients refuse to undergo
the medical treatment or do not give their consent to proceed with such treatment. The medical
3 Foster, Charles, and Jonathan Herring. "Rethinking the Welfare and Best Interest Principles." Altruism, Welfare
and the Law. Springer, Cham, 2015. 33-52.
4 Re F 2 WLR 1025 [1990] 2 AC 1, [1989] 2 WLR 1025, [1989] 2 All ER 545, CA and HL(E)
5 Mental Capacity Act [2005] (the Act) at section [1(5)]
6Stauch, Marc. Text, Cases & Materials on Medical Law. Routledge, 2017.

3MEDICAL LAW ASSIGNMENT
professionals are prohibited from proceeding with any medical treatment without obtaining
consent from the patient, which would otherwise amount to a criminal offence. In English law,
the generally accepted principle in medical law is that a patient reserves the right to determine
whether they will undergo the treatment. The purpose of this principle is two-fold that is
explained in the case of Chester v Afshar [2004]7. In this case, Lord Steyn asserted that this
principle not only prevents the patients from suffering any physical injury which the patient had
not expected but also upholds the principle of autonomy or self-determination as well as the
dignity of each patients. This principle is also recognized in the Common Law, which entitles
every person to secure his or her bodily integrity against any invasion committed by others8.
Importance of Consent in medical law
According to Stauch (2017), English law emphasizes on the fact that the consent of a
patient in healthcare must be an ‘informed consent’ in order to safeguard the autonomy right of
such patient. Further, in order to establish that the consent given by such patient is valid, it is
important to prove the capacity of such patient to give consent to medical treatment and that it
was given on a voluntary basis after comprehending the nature of the treatment. Patients who
lack capacity to give consent to medical treatment may also exercise the right to autonomy but
such rights cannot be said to be an absolute right.
This issue relating to the exercise of autonomy while making a decision, is based on the
concept of consent as was established in Cantebury v Spence [1972] 464 F (2nd) 7729. The issue
related to autonomy was addressed as the court held that the right to self-decision or autonomy
can be exercised by a patient only if such patient possesses sufficient information to make a
7 Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41, para 18
8 Brazier, Margaret, and Emma Cave. Medicine, patients and the law. Oxford University Press, 2016.
9 Cantebury v Spence [1972] 464 F (2nd) 772