Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Faith, Belief, Fundamental Rights and Delivering Health Care in a Modern NHS: An Unrealistic Aspiration?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Health Care Analysis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper considers the way in which English law safeguards fundamental rights to respect for faith and belief in relation to the delivery of health care. It explores the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010. It explores some of the challenges in attempting to reconcile fundamental rights to faith and belief and the delivery of health care, both now and in the future and whether this is a realistic aspiration in a state funded health care service.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. X v France Decision of 20, December 1974, (1974) 1 DR 41.

  2. Knudsen v Norway (App 1145/84), Decision of 8th March 1985 (1985) 42 DR 247.

  3. ISKCON and others v UK Decision of 8th March 1994 (1994) 76-A DR 41.

  4. Karaduman v Turkey Decision of 3 May 1993 (1993) 74 DR 93.

  5. D v France Decision of 6th December 1983 (1983) 35 DR 199.

  6. Chappell v UK Decision of 14th July 1987, (1987).

  7. Angelini v Sweden, Decision of 3 December 1986, (1986) 53 DLR 241.

  8. R (on the application of Williamson and others) v Secretary of state for Education and Employment and others [2005] UKHL 15.

  9. Hasan and Chaush v Bulgaria (App 30985/96) Judgement of 26th October 2000, para 62.

  10. S.10 Equality Act 2010.

  11. The scope of the section is not unlimited- see e.g. a claim by a secretary that the section extended to her actions see- Janaway v Salford Area Health Authority [1988] 3 All ER 1079.

  12. (2000) 52 BMLR 2717.

  13. [1993] 1 FLR 376 and see also Re O (a minor) (Medical Treatment) [1993] 2 FLR 149.

  14. Re S (a minor) [1993] 1 FLR 376.

  15. Ibid.

  16. [1993] 1 FLR 386 and see also Re S (a minor) (Medical Treatment) [1994] 2 FLR 1065.

  17. Ibid.

  18. Re L (Medical Treatment: Gillick Competency) [1998] 2 FLR 810, this case was also followed subsequently in Re P (Medical Treatment: Best Interests) [2004] 2 FLR 1117.

  19. Re T [1992] 1 All ER.

  20. Re C (a minor) (medical treatment) [1998] 1 FCR 1.

  21. S. 4, Human Rights Act 1998.

  22. S.3. Human Rights Act 1998.

  23. See e.g. DPP v Pretty [2002] 1 All ER 1.

  24. (App 49853/99) Admissibility decision of 2 October 2001.

  25. R (Burke) v GMC [2006] QB 274.

  26. See for example, R v Cambridge DHA, ex p B [1995] 1 WLR 898.

  27. R v North Derbyshire HA ex parte Fisher [1997] 8 Med LR 327.

    R v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Pfizer Ltd ([1999] Lloyds Rep Med 289.

  28. R v North West Lancashire Health Authority ex parte A D and G. [2000] 1 WLR 977;R (on the application of Rogers) v Swindon NHS Primary Care Trust and another [2006] EWCA Civ 39; R (on the application of AC) v Berkshire West Primary Care Trust [2011] EWCA Civ 247. R (on the application of Alexander Thomas Condliffe) v North Staffordshire PCT [2011] EWCA Civ 910.

  29. S. 12 Equality Act 2010.

  30. S.19 Equality Act 2010.

  31. S. 27 Equality Act 2010.

References

  1. Ackerman, T. (2006). Emergency contraception: Science and religion collide. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 47, 154.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Balmer, L. (2006). Royal pharmaceutical society and conscientious objectors. The Lancet, 367, 1980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bennett, B. (ed.) (2004). Abortion Dartmouth.

  4. Bridge. (1999). Religious beliefs and teenage refusal of medical treatment. MLR, 62, 585.

  5. Department of Health. (2009). Religion and belief. London: DOH.

  6. Department of Health. (2010). Guidance on uniform and workwear policies for NHS employees. http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/@ps/documents/digitalasset/dh_114754.pdf. Accessed September 30, 2012.

  7. Dresser, R. (2005). Professionals, conformity and conscience. Hastings Center Report, 35(6), 9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Explanatory Notes Equality Act 2010. Accessed September 30, 2012. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/contents.

  9. Freeman, M (2001) Whose life is it anyway? Medical Law Review 259–265.

  10. Fresh Guidance on Bare Below the Elbow. (2010). Nursing times 30th March 2010. http://www.nursingtimes.net/whats-new-in-nursing/acute-care/fresh-guidance-on-bare-below-the-elbow/5013040.article.

  11. General Medical Council. (2008). Personal beliefs and medical practice. London: GMC.

  12. Hepple, B. (2011). The equality act: The new legal framework. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Huxtable, R. (2007). Euthanasia, ethics and law from conflict to compromise. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Keown, J. (2002). Euthanasia, ethics and public policy: An argument against legalisation. CUP.

  15. Lamackova, A. (2008). Conscientious objection in reproductive health care: Analysis of Pichon and Sajous v France. European Journal of Health Law, 15, 7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. McHale, J. V. (2008). Health care choices, faith and belief in the light of the human rights act 1998: New hope or missed opportunity. Medical Law International, 9(4), 331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Newdick, C. (2005). Who should we treat? (2nd ed.). Oxford: OUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. News. (2012). Faith case battle reaches Strasbourg, 8th September 2012. Health Service Journal.

  19. Royal Pharmaceutical Society. (2010). Guidance on the provision of services affected by religious and moral beliefs. September 2010 http://www.pharmacyregulation.org/pdfs/other/religiousmoralbeliefguidancev13.pdf.

  20. Savulescu, J. (2006). Conscientious objection in medicine. BMJ 332, 294.

  21. Sheldon, S. (1997). Beyond control: Medical power and abortion law. London: Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Syrett, K. (2007). Law, legitimacy and the rationing of health care. Cambridge: CUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK

    Jean V. McHale

Authors
  1. Jean V. McHale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean V. McHale.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McHale, J.V. Faith, Belief, Fundamental Rights and Delivering Health Care in a Modern NHS: An Unrealistic Aspiration?. Health Care Anal 21, 224–236 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-013-0247-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-013-0247-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation