An Analysis of Charlie's Law and Alfie's Law.

The Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans cases were high-profile cases involving disagreements between the parents of young infants and medical practitioners, which have given impetus to pre-existing calls for law reform that have been rebranded as 'Charlie's Law' and 'Alfie's Law'. I argue against the proposal to replace the best interest test, which is currently determinative in such contentious cases, with a significant harm test, as it would render UK law divergent from international law. I also employ critical theory to rebut the notion that parents are the best decision makers and refute criticisms of clinicians (who reflexively acknowledged the limits of medicine). I utilise theories of distributive justice to demonstrate that legal reform may exacerbate unfairness, and case law to show that it may be unworkable. Nonetheless, I apply critical and Foucauldian theory to critique the lack of patient and public empowerment within the NHS and I endorse the proposal to ensure that mediation is offered in contentious cases, as this may empower patients and their carers. I also aver that the best interests test should be informed by clearer criteria regarding the allocation of finite resources, which the public should influence via the democratisation of the NHS.

Commentary: The Boy Who Cried Wolf or Cassandra? A Consideration of the Correct Characterization of Critics of Neoliberal Reforms to the English NHS.

Peter Roderick and Allyson Pollock's article, "Dismantling the National Health Service in England," provides a history of the market incrementalism that has dominated UK government policy pertaining to the English National Health System (NHS), in recent decades. It also contains an analysis of the latest statute to reform the English NHS, namely the Health and Care Act 2022. It is often argued that the concerns-for example, about privatization-of those who critique neoliberal reforms to the English NHS are misplaced. I highlight that such neoliberal reforms have increased the proportion of the budget of the English NHS that is being diverted to private providers. Consequently, I aver that the term privatization accurately describes what has been occurring within the English NHS. I contend that the arguments of those who deny or downplay the privatization of the English NHS are indicative of some of the ideological strategies that the sociologist John B. Thompson identified. My commentary suggests that the concerns of critics of neoliberal reforms to the English NHS, such as Roderick and Pollock, are not misplaced and that more heed should be given to their analyses and warnings.

The Dizziness of Freedom: Understanding and Responding to Vaccine Anxieties.

The rise in vaccine hesitancy in high-income countries has led some to recommend that certain vaccinations be made compulsory in states where they are currently voluntary. In contrast, I contend that legal coercion is generally inappropriate to address the complex social and psychological phenomenon of vaccine anxieties.

"With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility": Democracy, the Secretary of State for Health and Blame Shifting Within the English National Health Service.

The English National Health Service (NHS) has suffered from a democratic deficit since its inception. Democratic accountability was to be through ministers to Parliament, but ministerial control over and responsibility for the NHS were regarded as myths. Reorganizations and management and market reforms, in the neoliberal era, have centralized power within the NHS. However, successive governments have sought to reduce their responsibility for health care through institutional depoliticization, to shift blame, facilitated through legal changes. New Labour's creation of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) and Monitor were somewhat successful in reducing ministerial culpability regarding health technology regulation and foundation trusts, respectively. The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition created NHS England to reduce ministerial culpability for health care more generally. This is pertinent as the NHS is currently being undermined by inadequate funding and privatization. However, the public has not shifted from blaming the government to blaming NHS England. This indicates limits to the capacity of law to legitimize changes to social relations. While market reforms were justified on the basis of empowering patients, I argue that addressing the democratic deficit is a preferable means of achieving this goal.