The author suggests that law is best represented, understood, and taught in the form of open‐ended, defeasible, normative, conditional propositions. The meaning, role, and significance of defeasibility is explained by presenting three ‘canonical forms’ and by distinguishing exceptions and overrides. The role of equity in the law of contract, as understood by the author, is taken as an exemplar of override and parallels are drawn with policy in the English law of tort and with mercy in the criminal law of (...) England and Wales. The third and preferred canonical form is sequenced and internally differentiated and seeks a satisfactory middle way between all‐or‐nothing rules and wild‐card discretion and a reconciliation of the surface demands of legal rules and the deeper values embedded in law. The suggested approach therefore resists closure and seeks a conceptual restructuring of law which opens it up to the influence of notions such as justice and equity and locates them as open‐ended conditions of defeasance inhabiting the express or implied ‘unless…’ clause which is taken to be an element in every fully‐formed statement of law. This approach accommodates law as a locus not only of traditional rule‐based reasoning, but also of open‐ended internal moral reasoning invoking deeper values inherent in law and only imperfectly captured and implemented by formal legal rules. (shrink)

Those who campaign for law reform to permit “euthanasia” may seek different things and at least some of what they seek may already be permissible under the criminal law of England and Wales. In this paper I examine one means whereby the criminal law delivers outcomes acceptable to the euthanasia lobby, that is the curious notion of “causation” deployed by the law, which adds a value override to the more usual notion of factual causation such that, for example, if medical (...) treatment falls within the acceptable range as normal and proper, the pre–existing injury or illness is treated as exclusively the cause of death and the doctor escapes criminal liability, even where the medical treatment will shorten life to the certain knowledge, possibly even the wish, of the doctor. Thus the law may already be delivering a range of outcomes — euthanasia in a weak sense — acceptable to the euthanasia lobby. If so, it achieves this by stealth. That is inappropriate to the doctor–patient relationship, which is one of trust. So there is a strong case for greater transparency. Moreover, there are limits to the acceptable outcomes which an unreformed criminal law can deliver and in a range of cases the criminal law condemns the doctor to impotence and the patient to a prolonged, miserable and undignified death. So there is also a case for going beyond the current law and legalising euthanasia in a strong sense. (shrink)

I argue that the duty of confidentiality is relative, not absolute; and that it is primarily a matter for the professional judgment of the reflective health practitioner to determine in the particular case whether competing public interests (or other compelling reasons) override that duty. I have supported that account with an analysis of medical practice as a recourse role and with an account of law that emphasises not only its duty‐imposing character but also, and crucially, an embedded liberty to depart (...) from the plain requirements of a primary legal rule where in the conscientious judgment of the addressee of that law, there is ‘damn good reason’ to do so. This account of the moral nullification of law at the outer limits appears to be descriptively accurate over a wide range of law and normatively appealing not only to democratic citizens but also to professionals such as doctors and lawyers whose role involves testing the law on moral grounds and who should be ready to do so, if but only if, they believe in the good faith exercise of professional judgment that the outcome mandated by the literal application of the legal rule is inconsistent with the moral mission of their role. The argument is illustrated with cases from American and English courts which, perhaps, render plausible the otherwise paradoxical notion that the law itself admits of departures from the legal rules. (shrink)