Welcome to another blog post!
Before I started my master’s degree in Medical Law and Ethics, healthcare to me was relatively simple. We have the NHS, there are doctors that treat patients and that was it to me. Of course, that’s not the case. Studying medical law made me realise there is a lot of tension. There’s tension between ethics, regulations, autonomy and this idea of institutional protection.
In today’s blog post, I’m going to explore how studying medical law changed the way I view healthcare. This is quite a heavy post but I hope you enjoy it nonetheless. Let’s get to it!
The Myth of Benevolent Care
I used to think that healthcare was purely motivated by compassion. Of course, that’s probably a simple way of looking at things. Looking at different topics like negligence, end-of-life care and informed consent has somewhat complicated that view. There are legal frameworks that shape and limit how healthcare professionals operate. Take for instance the Bolam case. Standards of care are established based on what a body of medical opinion would support. Therefore, the distinction between what is ethically right and legally defensive was somewhat striking.
Autonomy Isn’t Always Straightforward
I have always had a belief that patient autonomy should prevail always. However, not everything is as simple as it seems. The Montgomery case is a crucial example of this. It reshaped how consent is understood in our jurisdiction, showing what a reasonable patient would want to know. This case made me realise that sometimes patients may not be fully aware of the risks, as well as whether disclosure empowers or overwhelms. To summarise this point, medical law doesn’t get rid of autonomy, but it does clarify that context is important.
The Emotional Weight of End-of-Life Decisions
End-of-life decisions are such a controversial and heartbreaking part of medical law. From the laws surrounding assisted dying to the withdrawal of treatment cases, there’s so much to unpack with how our law works in these areas.
The case of Airedale NHS Trust v Bland showcases such difficulties in this area. The idea of distinguishing acts and omissions – ie between killing someone or letting them die.
Of course, one cannot discuss this area without mentioning the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. I’ve already written a blog post about that (and it was my dissertation topic) so feel free to check that out. The idea of autonomy vs the sanctity of life features here, making me realise the ethical dilemmas featured in medical law.
Trust and Defensive Medicine
Another uncomfortable realisation was how litigation shapes healthcare behaviour. The fear of being sued can influence decision-making, documentation practices, and risk disclosure. I began to see how defensive medicine may not always serve patients but rather, it emerges from a system built on accountability and blame.
This doesn’t mean healthcare is broken. However, the system itself is more cautious, more procedural, and more legally susceptible than I once appreciated.
And that’s it! Thank you so much for taking the time out of your day to read this post and I will see you soon for another one!
Beth
Beth Olivia 