- Professor Helen L Codd (Professor - University of Central Lancashire)
|Delivery Type||Delivery length / details|
|Lecture||10 x 2 Hour Lectures|
|Lecture||10 x 1 Hour Lectures|
|Seminar||3 x 2 Hour Seminars|
|Assessment Type||Assessment length / details||Proportion|
|Semester Exam||2 Hours Exam Candidates are not permitted to bring any books, notes or any other materials into the examination.||100%|
|Supplementary Exam||2 Hours Exam Candidates are not permitted to bring any books, notes or any other materials into the examination.||100%|
On successful completion of this module students should be able to:
Students are expected to have developed an appreciation of the issues both in terms of their relevance to abstract philosophical concerns, scientific developments and social policy, and to practical legal principles and practice.
1. Analytical skills
2. Problem solving
3. Constructing argument
4. Synthesis (ethics, law and medicine)
5. Assessing and interpreting evidence and source material (interdisciplinary)
6. Organisation of ideas
7. Critical evaluation of complex and conflicting argument and evidence
8. Understanding relevance and irrelevance (especially with regard to making students aware that their gut reaction to issues is largely irrelevant).
People are today living longer, often due to advancements in medical science, yet this increased life expectancy may not always be considered a blessing. Should a patient be allowed to choose to die? In what circumstances will the law protect the respective rights of a pregnant woman and her foetus? A number of cases highlight the extent to which the medical profession is confronted with such issues.
Medicine is an imprecise science and calls for a clinical judgement. To what extent should society penalise doctors for their mistakes? An over-punitive legal regime can lead doctors to exercise too much caution and can lead to defensive medicine. However, too lax a regime creates the impression that doctors are a law unto themselves. How should medicine be regulated?
Patients who are mentally incompetent will need particular care. They can neither agree to, nor refuse treatment. The court's power to intervene is ambiguous in the case of an adult and the next-of-kin can do no more than express an opinion. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 declares that the doctor would not be acting unlawfully if she or he acts in their patients "best interests". Who should decide what is in their best interests? Has this legislation improved the plight of those who lack capacity?
It is estimated that one in six couples is infertile. There are many forms of treatment for infertility, each one posing very difficult ethical questions. Do people have a right to a child? Who should be eligible for treatment? To what extent should we be able to determine the sex of a child or his or her genetic composition?
The module will give recognition to the split between self regulation by the medical profession and the potential need for external regulation whether by law or other means. The difficulties raised in attempting to reconcile the ethical dilemmas of medical practice with the prescriptive approach of the law will be highlighted.
- Introduction to Ethics
- Medical Negligence
- Medical Records and Confidentiality
- Provision of Healthcare in the NHS
- Abortion and neonates
- Assisted Conception
- Mental Health
This module is at CQFW Level 6