Legally Human? 'Novel Beings' and English Law.

Novel beings-intelligent, conscious life-forms sapient in the same way or greater than are human beings-are no longer the preserve of science fiction. Through technologies such as artificial general intelligence, synthetic genomics, gene printing, cognitive enhancement, advanced neuroscience, and more, they are becoming ever more likely and by some definitions may already be emerging. Consideration of the nature of intelligent, conscious novel beings such as those that may result from these technologies requires analysis of the concept of the 'reasonable creature in being' in English law, as well as of the right to life as founded in the European Convention on Human Rights and the attempts to endow human status on animals in recent years. Our exploration of these issues leads us to conclude that there is a strong case to recognize such 'novel' beings as entitled to the same fundamental rights to life, freedom from inhumane treatment, and liberty as we are.

Memories of Ken Mason.

John Kenyon Mason (19 December 1919-26 January 2017), CBE, MD, LLD, FRCPath, DMJ, FRCPE, FRSE, and known as Ken Mason to us all, was Regius Professor of Forensic Medicine at the University of Edinburgh from 1973-1985 and thereafter Emeritus Professor of Forensic Medicine and Honorary Fellow in the School of Law at the University of Edinburgh. A formal obituary to Professor Mason is published in the Scotsman (http://www.scotsman.com/news/obituaries/obituary-professor-ken-mason-medical-jurisprudence-pioneer-1-4357181). We offer some personal tributes to our friend and colleague.

Not so new directions in the law of consent? Examining Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board.

This paper examines the UK Supreme Court decision in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board, which deals with consent and information disclosure in medical treatment and care. It signaled a move away from a 'doctor knows best' approach to one that focuses on disclosing information to which particular patients would attach significance. Notwithstanding concerns about increased litigation and loss of professional autonomy, the reality is that the decision will make little difference to healthcare practice and consent in the UK. The Supreme Court has endorsed a view that most lawyers and doctors thought already prevailed, and it reflects the General Medical Council's guidance on the issue of consent in any case. Given recent healthcare scandals in the National Health Service (NHS), the Supreme Court's legal recognition of the importance of recognizing patient autonomy in disclosing risks about medical treatment and care is a welcome development.

Helping doctors become better doctors: Mary Lobjoit--an unsung heroine of medical ethics in the UK.

Medical Ethics has many unsung heros and heroines. Here we celebrate one of these and on telling part of her story hope to place modern medical ethics and bioethics in the UK more centrally within its historical and human contex.

Healthcare scandals in the NHS: crime and punishment.

The Francis Report into failures of care at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Hospital documented a series of 'shocking' systematic failings in healthcare that left patients routinely neglected, humiliated and in pain as the Trust focused on cutting costs and hitting government targets. At present, the criminal law in England plays a limited role in calling healthcare professionals to account for failures in care. Normally, only if a gross error leads to death will a doctor or nurse face the prospect of prosecution. Doctors and nurses caring for patients under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 may however be prosecuted for wilful neglect of a patient. In the light of the Francis Report, this article considers whether the criminal offence of wilful neglect should be extended to a broader healthcare setting and not confined to mental healthcare.

Wilfred Fish lecture.

It is a great honour to be invited to deliver this lecture in memory of Sir Wilfred Fish, first President of the General Dental Council. I am only too well aware of my unfitness for the task: my experience of dentistry is limited to the dental chair; my knowledge of dental law is virtually nil. I trust that Sir Wilfred would not disapprove. His contribution to dentistry was enormous; his labours ensured that dentistry received both the independent recognition it merits and its own regulatory framework, freed from any sort of subservience to medicine.

Unfinished feticide: a legal commentary.

Jansen expresses concern as to the legal implications of both selective reduction of pregnancy and unsuccessful attempts at termination of pregnancy using mifepristone. This commentary examines the legality of both procedures and concludes that Jansen is over-optimistic in his belief that neither procedure is likely to fall foul of the criminal laws on induced abortion. By contrast his anxieties about civil liability arising from the subsequent live birth of a damaged infant are, it is suggested, unnecessarily pessimistic. Such an action is most unlikely to succeed if brought by the infant herself and any claim on the part of the mother will normally be dependent on proof of negligence. The commentary focusses on the law in England with relevant references to other common law jurisdictions.