Charging for After-care Services under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 – The Final Word?

R v Manchester City Council, ex parte Stennett, R v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, ex parte Armstrong, R v Harrow London Borough Council, ex parte Cobham [2002] UKHL 34; [2002] 3 W.L.R. 584; [2002] 4 All E.R. 124.House of Lords (13, 14 May, 25 July 2002) Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Steyn, Lord Hutton and Lord Millett

Mental Health Review Tribunals – Just how ‘Speedily’?

R (on the application of KB and others) v (1) Mental Health Review Tribunal (2) Secretary ofState for Health [2002] EWHC 639 (Admin)Administrative Court (23rd April 2002) Stanley Burnton J

Pressure vessels II: An update on mental health among higher education staff in the UK

Analysing fresh data drawn from Freedom of Information requests, Pressure Vessels II provides an update to Morrish’s 2019 investigation into mental ill health in universities in the UK. This report highlights a continuing rise in anxiety and mental distress amongst HE staff, particularly amongst women and professional service staff

Negligence is negligence: implications for an egalitarian agenda [Blog]

This short paper explores the significance of the "constitutionalism of private law" through the lens of developments in the context of the tort of negligence. Drawing a distinction between legal egalitarianism and social egalitarianism, the author notes that in the former respect the greater convergence of human rights and private law might be regarded as a welcome development; in respect of social egalitarianism, however, the author argues that given the way that the tort of negligence operates in practice, which in itself is a pretty limited vehicle for social justice, constitutionalism of private law as it speaks to negligence, is bound to also promote the most negligible contribution to social justice

A womb with a mother in view: reflections on conflicting analyses of wrongful birth (a response to Professor Chris Bruce)

In a recent paper, Chris Bruce (2008) comments that "Nicolette Priaulx, using legal reasoning argued that the British courts' ruling in [the wrongful birth] cases have been inconsistent and unsupportable. This paper takes the contrary view, arguing that the court's behaviour can be explained using economic reasoning." Insofar as Bruce's fascinating paper raises a much broader range of issues of interest to me, it is this passage which captures my particular attention. In light of my earlier contribution to the Journal of Legal Economics (hereafter, "JLE"), which provides a lengthy critique of the recent developments in the wrongful conception/birth case law in the UK, in this note I seek to explore what I consider to be critical and problematic aspects of the law and economics approach to these wrongful birth cases, as forwarded by Chris Bruce; in doing so, I restrict my response to the following interrelated questions: (1) Why is it that Professor Bruce and I should find ourselves so profoundly in disagreement as to the British courts' management of these wrongful birth cases? What lies at the heart of this disagreement? (2) Should there really be a "disagreement" at all, if, as is it commonly claimed, that economists employ the "positive scientific" approach to investigate the rationale underlying the development of the common law? (3) Why do I find an economic analysis of the wrongful birth cases unconvincing? How could it convince me

Vorsprung durch Technik: on biotechnology, bioethics, and its beneficiaries

Bioethics as a distinctive field is undergoing a critical turn. It may be a quiet revolution, but a growing body of scholarship illustrates a perceived need for a rethink of the scope of the field and the approaches and priorities that have carried bioethicists through many heady years of success. Few areas of bioethical practice have been left unexamined, ranging from questions as to the sustainability of the discipline in its current form to the “expertise” of its practitioners; the legitimacy of bioethics in the realms of policymaking; its relationship to philosophy; the purchase of empirical and interdisciplinary method; the relationship of bioethics to the real world; bioethical understandings of the concept of “health” (and methods of attainment); its agenda, priorities, and inclusiveness right up to what might be the overarching question: “What is bioethics all about?” Unsurprisingly, these questions elicit varied responses. Scholars from various disciplines have critiqued fundamental tenets of the “ethics” business, albeit as claims of its “conservatism,” “corruption,” and its questionable “usefulness” suggest, not always with a charitable or constructive eye. But quite crucially and often overlooked, bioethics itself has not shied away from the question as to what bioethics is and what it should become; increasingly apparent is that this kind of self-conscious and reflexive theorizing is regarded as a key priority for taking contemporary ethics forward

Pressure vessels II: An update on mental health among higher education staff in the UK

Analysing fresh data drawn from Freedom of Information requests, Pressure Vessels II provides an update to Morrish’s 2019 investigation into mental ill health in universities in the UK. This report highlights a continuing rise in anxiety and mental distress amongst HE staff, particularly amongst women and professional service staff

Connective knowledge: what we need to know about other fields to ‘envision’ cross-disciplinary collaboration

This paper centralises the question of what academics in higher education settings need to know about other fields to stimulate cross-disciplinary collaborative work. The concept of ‘knowledge’, while recognised as important within cross-disciplinary studies, has failed to be properly problematized. Little attention has been paid to what cross-disciplinary knowledge actors should possess, the purposes that knowledge might serve, and few pause to consider the concept of collaboration itself, as an inherent source of situated learning. The result is recommendations about what researchers should ‘know’ that cannot be operationalised in practice. Highlighting a distinction between ‘Of-Knowledge’, entailing detailed understanding of a field, and ‘About-Knowledge’, a rudimentary form of knowledge about fields, we explore two key points of the cross-disciplinary collaborative life-cycle to evaluate the needs, purposes, limits and possibilities of knowing. Noting that cross-disciplinary learning is a long process, and for which no pre-packaged ‘knowledge’ emerges to address the kinds of cognitive deficits that researchers typically identify, we argue that collaboration itself provides a non-substitutable venue for cross-disciplinary learning. In contrast, focusing on the point of ‘envisioning’ where specialisms are ‘scoped out’ and collaborative horizons ‘mapped’, we argue for efforts to be placed in enhancing researchers’ ‘About-Knowledge’, a form of connective knowledge that extends researchers’ basic knowledge about other fields prior to constructing collaborative projects. Critical for the aspirations of futures research, and the importance of fostering global, national, regional and local collaboration, we highlight how a little knowledge can go a long way

Connective knowledge: what we need to know about other fields to ‘envision’ cross-disciplinary collaboration

This paper centralises the question of what academics in higher education settings need to know about other fields to stimulate cross-disciplinary collaborative work. The concept of ‘knowledge’, while recognised as important within cross-disciplinary studies, has failed to be properly problematized. Little attention has been paid to what cross-disciplinary knowledge actors should possess, the purposes that knowledge might serve, and few pause to consider the concept of collaboration itself, as an inherent source of situated learning. The result is recommendations about what researchers should ‘know’ that cannot be operationalised in practice. Highlighting a distinction between ‘Of-Knowledge’, entailing detailed understanding of a field, and ‘About-Knowledge’, a rudimentary form of knowledge about fields, we explore two key points of the cross-disciplinary collaborative life-cycle to evaluate the needs, purposes, limits and possibilities of knowing. Noting that cross-disciplinary learning is a long process, and for which no pre-packaged ‘knowledge’ emerges to address the kinds of cognitive deficits that researchers typically identify, we argue that collaboration itself provides a non-substitutable venue for cross-disciplinary learning. In contrast, focusing on the point of ‘envisioning’ where specialisms are ‘scoped out’ and collaborative horizons ‘mapped’, we argue for efforts to be placed in enhancing researchers’ ‘About-Knowledge’, a form of connective knowledge that extends researchers’ basic knowledge about other fields prior to constructing collaborative projects. Critical for the aspirations of futures research, and the importance of fostering global, national, regional and local collaboration, we highlight how a little knowledge can go a long way

Inquiry on abortion on the grounds of foetal abnormality in England and Wales

Report compiled for Inquiry into Abortion on the Grounds of Disability to sit alongside Oral Evidence. Terms of Inquiry: In light of the current legal position, the Parliamentary Inquiry into Abortion on the Grounds of Disability is seeking evidence from parents, medical practitioners, academia, support groups, disability groups, lawyers and individuals with an interest regarding the current theory, practice and implications of the approach to abortion on the grounds of disability in the UK