Public health, private right: Constitution and common law

Medical Law International

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 201-218

  Brownsword, Roger ^a,b  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMAN RIGHTS; INFORMED CONSENT; LAW; LEGAL ASPECT; LIFESTYLE; PRIVACY; PUBLIC HEALTH; REVIEW; SAMPLING; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 33645710313     PISSN: 09685332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/096853320600700303     Document Type: Review

References (72)

1. Such a pathway, I hope, does justice to the range and direction of Di Longley's interests in medical and health care law.
2. Lawrence O. Gostin, Public Health Law (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), p. 13.
3. Compare, Gostin, note 2 above, at 320-321.
4. See, e.g., Helen N. Macbeth (ed), Health Outcomes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996);
5. and George Teeling Smith (ed), Measuring Health: A Practical Approach (Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1988).
6. See, e.g., Department of Health, Tackling Health Inequalities: A Programme for Action (July 2, 2003).
7. HLA Hart, The Concept of Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961).
8. Seminally, see E.J. Weinrib, The Idea of Private Law (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995).
9. Lorraine E. Weinrib and Ernest J. Weinrib, "Constitutional Values and Private Law in Canada" in Daniel Friedmann and Daphne Barak-Erez (eds), Human Rights in Private Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2001) 43, 46-47.
10. [1893] 1 QB 256.
11. [1932] AC 562.
12. [2003] UKHL 66. For comment on Marcic and the equally restrictive decision in Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61,
13. see Maria Lee, "Private Nuisance in the House of Lords: Back to Basics" (2005) 15 KCLJ 417.
14. See especially Lord Hoffmann's judgment at paras 63 and 64.
15. See, e.g., Stovin v Wise (Norfolk County Council, Third Party) [1996] 3 WLR 388; on which, see Jane Convery, "Public or Private? Duty of Care in a Statutory Framework: Stovin v Wise in the House of Lords" (1997) 60 MLR 559.
16. Dispensing with the Truth (New York: St Martin's Press, 2001).
17. Maxine Frith, "Exposed: How Drugs Giant Pushed Vioxx Painkiller" The Independent, August 22, 2005, page 1;
18. James Burleigh, "Vioxx Firm May Settle with Drug Claimants", The Independent, August 27, 2005, page 28;
19. and see, too, David Prosser, "Class Action Offers Hope in the Legal Battle against Goliath", The Independent, August 27, 2005, Save and Spend page 3.
20. Donald McGillivray and John Wightman, "Private Rights, Public Interests and the Environment" in Tim Hayward and John O'Neill (eds), Justice, Property and the Environment (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997) 144, at 154.
21. Also Jenny Steele, "Private Law and the Environment: Nuisance in Context" (1995) 15 Legal Studies 236.
22. Generally, see Neil Gunningham and Peter Grabosky, Smart Regulation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998).
23. See, e.g., Jenny Steele, note 16 above.
24. Compare, e.g., Stuart Biegel, Beyond Our Control? (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2003) Ch. 4;
25. and Mauro Cappelletti, "Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes Within the Framework of the World-Wide Access-to-Justice Movement" (1993) 56 MLR 282.
26. Famously, see M. Galanter, "Why the 'Haves' Come Out Ahead: Speculation on the Limits of Legal Change" (1974) 9 Law and Society Review 95.
27. In order to deliver on the 3Es, the first smart lesson is to recognise the limits of single instrument approaches; and the second lesson is to be aware of the range of regulatory instruments and the importance of putting in place an optimal mix: see Gunningham and Grabosky, note 17, above.
28. For more on the regulatory range within the law, see Roger Brownsword, "Regulating Human Genetics: New Dilemmas for a New Millennium" (2004) 12 Medical Law Review 14.
29. Lawrence Lessig, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (New York: Basic Books, 1999), Ch 7;
30. and Lessig, "The Law of the Horse: What Cyberlaw Might Teach" (1999) 113 Harvard Law Review 501, 507-514.
31. For further development, see Andrew Murray and Colin Scott, "Controlling the New Media: Hybrid Responses to New Forms of Power" (2002) 65 Modern Law Review 491.
32. Code, at 93-94.
33. Compare Vic George and Paul Wilding, Ideology and Social Welfare (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1976).
34. Compare the account in Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1974).
35. Op cit, note 2 above, at 20.
36. Compare Jacobson v Massachusetts 197 US 11 (1905).
37. See http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk;
38. and J.V. McHale, "Regulating Genetic Databases: Some Legal and Ethical Issues" (2004) 12 Medical Law Review 70, esp at 72-73 .
39. UK Biobank Ethics and Governance Framework (Version 1.0, 24 September 2003) at 13-14. If potential participants express the view that they would want to be withdrawn on death or mental incapacity, they will not be recruited.
40. Compare the US National Bioethics Advisory Commission's report on Research Involving Human Biological Materials: Ethical Issues and Policy Guidance (1999) Recommendation 9.
41. Op cit, note 30 above, at p. 9.
42. Ibid., at p. 14.
43. Ibid., at p. 18.
44. See, in particular, R. v. Kelly [1998] 3 All ER 741. For a helpful summary, see McHale, note 29 above, at 79.
45. Human Rights Act, 1998; Data Protection Act, 1998.
46. Note 30 above, at p. 16.
47. See, e.g., Stephen R. Munzer, A Theory of Property (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), esp. at pp. 37-58.
48. As pointed out in J.W. Harris, "Who Owns My Body?" (1996) 16 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 55.
49. See Deryck Beyleveld and Roger Brownsword, Human Dignity in Bioethics and Biolaw (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) Chapter Eight.
50. See Moore v Regents of the University of California (1988) 249 Cal. Rptr. 494; (1990) 271 Cal. Rptr. 146, (1990) 793 P2d 479; cert, denied (1991) 111 S.Ct. 1388.
51. See, 2002 WL 1483266 (N.D. III); 264 F. Supp 2nd 1064 (S.D. Fla. 2003) (02-22244-CIV-MORENO (Miami)). For comment, see Graeme Laurie, Genetic Privacy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002) at 322-323 ;
52. and Florence Bellivier and Christine Noiville, "The Commercialisation of Human Biomaterials: What are the Rights of Donors of Biological Material?" paper presented at workshop on "Property in Human Tissue", University of Tübingen, January 21-22, 2005.
53. The plaintiffs alleged (i) breach of informed consent, (ii) breach of fiduciary duty, (iii) unjust enrichment, (iv) fraudulent concealment, (v) conversion, and (vi) misappropriation of trade secrets.
54. Stated shortly, the elements of an action for unjust enrichment are that the plaintiff has conferred a benefit on the defendant, who has voluntarily accepted that benefit, such that it would now be unjust for the defendant to retain the benefit without paying for it.
55. See the argument in Florence Bellivier and Christine Noiville, note 42 above.
56. See, e.g., Lorenz Schulz, "Genetic Data Banks" (2001) 9 Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik 43;
57. but compare Vilhjálmur Árnason, "Coding and Consent: Moral Challenges of the Database Project in Iceland (2004) 18 Bioethics 27.
58. See Roger Brownsword, "Code, Control and Choice: Why East is East and West is West" (2005) 25 Legal Studies 1.
59. See, e.g., Anita L. Allen, "Genetic Privacy: Emerging Concepts and Values" in M.A. Rothstein (ed), Genetic Secrets: Protecting Privacy and Confidentiality in the Genetic Era (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997) 31.
60. Compare Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, "The Right to Privacy" (1890-91) 4 Harvard Law Review 193.
61. Compare Charles Fried, "Privacy" (1968) 77 Yale Law Journal 475.
62. Compare the four sub-torts recognised in the US common law: see, William L. Prosser, "Privacy" (1960) 48 Cal. L. Rev. 383.
63. See especially, Mummery LJ in Home Office v Wainwright [2001] EWCA Civ 2081 at para 42 (rejecting a blockbuster tort).
64. R v. Source Informatics Limited [2000] 1 All ER 786.
65. For criticism, see Deryck Beyleveld and Elise Misled, "Betrayal of Confidence in the Court of Appeal" (2000) 4 Medical Law International 277;
66. and Laurie, note 42 above, at 225-226.
67. Compare Roger Brownsword, "Biobank Governance: Property, Privacy, and Consent" in R. Andorno, C. Lenk and N. Hoppe (eds), Ethics and Law of Intellectual Property: Current Problems in Politics, Science and Technology (Ashgate (forthcoming)).
68. For a thoroughgoing critique of the precautionary principle, see Cass R. Sunstein, Laws of Fear (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
69. Compare Christian Tomuschat, Human Rights: Between Idealism and Realism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).
70. See Roger Brownsword, "Reproductive Opportunities and Regulatory Challenges" (2004) 67 MLR 304.
71. Compare Pierre Baldi, The Shattered Self (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2002);
72. and, recently, see Mark Henderson, "Genetic Map Shows Route to New World of Medicine" The Times, October 27, 2005, p. 19 (on the so-called HapMap).