Coggon John
Institute for Science, Ethics, and Innovation, School of Law, University of Manchester, UK.
Med Law Rev. 2010 Winter;18(4):541-63. doi: 10.1093/medlaw/fwq028.
This paper provides a reflective analysis of the nature of normative critiques of law generally, and within medical law specifically. It first seeks to establish the context within which critical analysis of law and legal measures takes place, and develops an argument that critiques should focus on political norms. Entailed in this claim is the contention that positions that seek to address controversial social problems can not resort simply to moral philosophy. It then provides a brief account of political liberalism that can contain and expose normative constraints on questions of moral and social contention. The focus then moves to a more direct reflection on medico-legal analysis. Considering both medical law as a discipline, and the study of end-of-life issues, the argument highlights the range of relevant issues that must be accounted for, and addresses the question of whether these are well conceived as ones of medical law. It is argued that a political framing offers a good general analytic context, but that when working in legal sub-disciplines analysts risk allowing 'locally' pertinent norms to dominate or unduly constrain wider debate. Thus it is questioned whether 'medical law' provides a coherent frame for social questions related to assisted-dying.
本文对一般法律的规范性批判的本质进行了反思性分析，特别是医学法律领域内的此类批判。它首先试图确立对法律及法律措施进行批判性分析的背景，并提出一种观点，即批判应聚焦于政治规范。这一主张意味着，试图解决有争议的社会问题的立场不能仅仅诉诸道德哲学。接着，本文简要阐述了政治自由主义，它能够包含并揭示对道德和社会争议问题的规范性约束。随后，焦点转向对医疗法律分析的更直接反思。考虑到医学法律作为一门学科以及对临终问题的研究，该观点强调了一系列必须考虑的相关问题，并探讨了这些问题是否能被很好地视为医学法律问题。有人认为，政治框架提供了一个良好的总体分析背景，但在法律子学科中工作时，分析人员有可能让“局部”相关规范主导或过度限制更广泛的辩论。因此，有人质疑“医学法律”是否为与协助死亡相关的社会问题提供了一个连贯的框架。
