The Human Rights Act 1998 - Why should it matter for medical practice?

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine

Volumn 98, Issue 9, 2005, Pages 404-410

  Samanta, Ash ^a   Samanta, Jo ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS OF LEICESTER NHS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^b DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL FEEDING; CONFIDENTIALITY; CONJOINED TWINS; DECISION MAKING; EUTHANASIA; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HISTORY OF MEDICINE; HUMAN; HUMAN RIGHTS; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MENTAL HEALTH; REVIEW; SOCIAL INSURANCE;

EID: 25144455408     PISSN: 01410768     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1258/jrsm.98.9.404     Document Type: Review

References (44)

1. The Human Rights Act 1998. London: Stationery Office
2. Hewson B. Why the Human Rights Act matters to doctors. BMJ 2000;321:780-2
3. McHarg A. Reconciling human rights and the public interest: conceptual problems and doctrinal uncertainties in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Modern Law Rev 1999;62:671-96
4. Handyside v United Kingdom (1976) 1 EHCR 737
5. Starmer K. Two years of the Human Rights Act. EHRLR 2003;1:14-23
6. Wadham J, Mountfield H, Edmundson A. Blackstone's Guide to the Human Rights Act 1998, 3rd edn. Oxford: OUP, 2003
7. R(H) v MHRT [2001] Med L Rev 185
8. Mental Health Act (Remedial) Order 2001
9. Osman v United Kingdom (1998) 5 BHRC 293
10. Re A (children) (conjoined twins) [2000] 4 All ER 961
11. R v Woollin [1998] 4 All ER 103
12. R (application of Mrs Diane Pretty) v DPP and Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 3 WLR 1598 (HL)
13. NHS Trust A v M; NHS Trust B v H [2000] Lloyds Rep Med (Fam Div) 807
14. Samanta J, Samanta A. Human Rights Act 1998 imposes an obligation to facilitate a good death. BMJ 2003;327:225
15. Ms B and An NHS Hospital Trust [2002] EWHC 429 (Fam)
16. In Re S (adult patient: sterilisation) [2001] Fam 15
17. Glass v UK (Application No 61827/00) [2004] 1 FCR 553
18. Havers P, Neenan C. Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights in medical law: not only is the right to life protected by law but the State should take steps to safeguard life. Postgrad Med J 2002;78:573-5
19. Re AK (2001) 58 BMLR 151
20. R (Burke) v General Medical Council (Defendant) and Disability Rights Commission (interested party) and the Official Solicitor (Intervener) [2004] EWHC 1879
21. R (Wilkinson) v Broadmoor Special Health Authority [2002] IWLR 419
22. Samanta A. Death, dying and the doctor: a dilemma at the bedside. Contemporary Issues in Law (in press)
23. Sheldon S. Evans v Amicus Healthcare; Hadley v Midland Fertility Services-Revealing cracks in the 'twin pillars'? (2004) 16 Child and Family Law Quarterly 437
24. Quintavalle (on behalf of Comment on Reproductive Ethics) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2005] UKHL 28
25. Tarbuck, Blood and Blood (2002) Unreported
26. Winterwerp v Netherlands (1979) 2 EHRR 387
27. Johnson v UK (1998) 2 EHRLR 224
28. Mental Health Act 1983 (s131)
29. R v Bournewood Community and Mental Health Trust ex parte L [1998] 1 All ER 634 (CA)
30. R v Bournewood Community and Mental Health Trust ex parte L [1998] 3 All ER 289 (HL)
31. HL v UK (2004) 45508/99
32. Re A (medical treatment: male sterilisation) [2000] 1 FLR 465
33. Caldicott guardians HSC 99/012
34. Montgomery J. Healthcare Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002
35. Van Oosterwijck v Belgium (1981) 3EHRR 557
36. Dudgeon v UK (1981) 4EHRR 149
37. R v Department of Health, ex parte Source Informatics Ltd [2000] 1 All ER 786 (CA)
38. Douglas v Hello [2001] All ER 289 (CA)
39. Z v Finland 25 EHRR 371
40. MS v Sweden (1999) 28 EHRR 313
41. Scialacqua v Italy (1998) 26 EHRR CD 162
42. R v DPP ex parte Kebeline [1999] 4 All ER 801 (HL)
43. North West Lancashire HA v A, D and G [1999] Lloyds' Rep Med 399
44. Willman S. A healthy approach to human rights? New Law J 2005;7173:605