Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Help separated parents ditch avoidance strategies that stop them resolving differences
The desire to avoid conflict with an ex is the primary reason that separated parents do not get to see their children.  That’s an eye-opening finding from a survey of 1,105 separated...
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
View all articles
Authors

'Taking account of the views of the patient', but only if the clinician (and the court) agrees - R (Burke) v General Medical Council [2007] CFLQ 225

Sep 29, 2018, 17:52 PM
Slug : taking-account-of-the-views-of-the-patient-but-only-if-the-clinician-and-the-court-agrees-r-burke-v-general-medical-council-2007-cflq-225
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Sep 19, 2011, 05:09 AM
Article ID : 95755

Unlike the first instance judgment in this case, the Court of Appeal decision in R (Burke) v General Medical Council has attracted little criticism. The majority of commentators appear to regard the outcome as unproblematic, almost an inevitable corollary to the first instance decision. This article will not follow the same path. Instead it will evaluate the impetus behind Leslie Burke's original claim and question the reasons why the first instance decision was so roundly rejected by the appeal court. Having considered the legal principles that underpin both judgments, it will conclude that Munby J accurately and sensitively depicted the plight of the applicant but that his judgment and its perceived implications were misinterpreted by some in the medical community whose passionate lobbying against it1 influenced not only the General Medical Council to bring the appeal, but also the court.

Categories :
  • Articles
  • CFLQ
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from