Health Care Analysis

, 16:208 | Cite as

Best Interests and Pragmatism

Original Article

Abstract

In this article I will show that ‘best interests’ is a concept that fits nicely with many of the features of pragmatism—Holm and Edgar’s rejection of the principle in favour of pragmatism it will be suggested is misplaced. ‘Best interests’ as a principle may be considered an embodiment of the ideals of pragmatic adjudication. The paper starts by briefly introducing the concept of ‘best interests’ and theories of judicial and legal ‘pragmatism’. This article will examine the role of the rational decision-maker in medical law and argue that this role is limited. The paper concludes by suggesting how we view the relationship between ‘best interests’ and ‘pragmatism’.

Keywords

Best interests  Legal pragmatism Philosophical pragmatism 

References

  1. 1.
    Airedale N.H.S. Trust v Bland [House Of Lords]. (1993). AC 789.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    An NHS Trust v. A. (2005). EWCA Civ 1145.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Archard, D. (1993). Children: Rights and childhood. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arras, J. D. (2001). Freestanding pragmatism in law and bioethics. Theoretical Medicine, 22, 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brazier, M. (2005). An intractable dispute: When parents and professionals disagree. Medical Law Review, 13, 412–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brazier, M. (1997). Hard cases. Journal of Medical Ethics, 23, 343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buck v Bell 274 US 200 (1927).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dworkin, R. (1975). Hard cases. Harvard Law Review, 88, 1057–1107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dworkin, R. (2006). Justice in robes. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frank, J. (1949). Law and the modern mind. London: Stevens.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grey, T. C. (1996). Freestanding legal pragmatism. Cardozo Law Review, 18, 21–42.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Holm, S. & Edgar, A. (2008). Best interest—a philosophical critique. Health Care Analysis, 16(3). doi:10.1007/s10728-008-0092-x.
  13. 13.
    Holmes, O. W. (1931). Codes and the arrangement of the law. Harvard Law Review, 44, 725–737.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    In Re S (Adult Patient: Sterilisation) (2001). Fam 15.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Portsmouth NHS Trust v Wyatt (2004). EWHC 2247 (Fam).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Portsmouth NHS Trust v Wyatt (2005). EWCA Civ 1181.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Portsmouth NHS Trust v Wyatt (2005). EWHC 117.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Portsmouth NHS Trust v Wyatt (2005). EWHC 693.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Posner, R. A. (1996). Pragmatic adjudication. Cardozo Law Review, 18, 1–20.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Posner, R. A. (2001). Breaking the deadlock: The 2000 election, the constitution, and the courts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Putnam, H. (1975). Mind, language and reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Re T (Adult: Refusal of Treatment) (1993). Fam. 95.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Re Wyatt (2006). EWHC 319.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Regina (Burke) v General Medical Council (Official Solicitor and others intervening) (2005). EWCA Civ 1003.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rorty, R. (2003). Consequences of pragmatism. MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Smith, S. J. (1998). A child’s best interests: A commentary on ‘jurisprudential and ethical perspectives on the best interests of children’ by Keith Walker. Interchange, 29, 309–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Walker, K. (1998). ‘Jurisprudential and ethical perspectives on the best interests of children’. Interchange, 29, 287–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation, Centre for Social Ethics and Policy, School of LawUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations