The legal determinants of health (in)justice.

The mutual influences of social epidemiology and ideas of justice, each on the other, have been seminal in the development of public health ethics and law over the past two decades, and to the prominence that these fields give to health inequalities and the social-including commercial, political, and legal-determinants of health. General and political recognition of injustices in systematised health inequalities have further increased given the crushingly unequal impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic; including impacts of the legal and policy responses to it. However, despite apparent attention from successive UK governments to injustices concerning avoidable inequalities in health opportunities and outcomes, significant challenges impede the creation of health laws and policy that are both effective and ethically rigorous.

Tackling Root Causes Upstream of Unhealthy Urban Development (TRUUD): Protocol of a five-year prevention research consortium.

Poor quality urban environments substantially increase non-communicable disease. Responsibility for associated decision-making is dispersed across multiple agents and systems: fast growing urban authorities are the primary gatekeepers of new development and change in the UK, yet the driving forces are remote private sector interests supported by a political economy focused on short-termism and consumption-based growth. Economic valuation of externalities is widely thought to be fundamental, yet evidence on how to value and integrate it into urban development decision-making is limited, and it forms only a part of the decision-making landscape.

Lord Sumption and the values of life, liberty and security: before and since the COVID-19 outbreak.

Lord Sumption, a former Justice of the Supreme Court, has been a prominent critic of coronavirus restrictions regulations in the UK. Since the start of the pandemic, he has consistently questioned both the policy aims and the regulatory methods of the Westminster government. He has also challenged rationales that hold that all lives are of equal value.

'Let them choose not to eat cake...': Public health ethics, effectiveness and equity in government obesity strategy.

With a focus on obesity strategy, this paper examines and explains questions of ethics and equity in public health policy. We identify and explain the dynamics at play in assigning individual and social/political responsibility for health, in the context of policies that rely heavily on the exercise of individual agency. The paper builds on an earlier scientific study by one of the authors, expanding the analysis through reference to public health ethics, and social ethics more broadly.

Collateral Paternalism and Liberal Critiques of Public Health Policy: Diminishing Theoretical Demandingness and Accommodating the Devil in the Detail.

Critical literatures, and public discourses, on public health policies and practices often present fixated concerns with paternalism. In this paper, rather than focus on the question of whether and why intended instances of paternalistic policy might be justified, we look to the wider, real-world socio-political contexts against which normative evaluations of public health must take place. We explain how evaluative critiques of public health policy and practice must be sensitive to the nuance and complexity of policy contexts.

An Aide Memoire for a Balancing Act? Critiquing The 'Balance Sheet' Approach to Best Interests Decision-Making.

The balance sheet is commonly used as a deliberative approach to decide best interests in Court of Protection cases in England and Wales, since Thorpe LJ in Re A (Male Sterilisation) described the balance sheet as a tool to enable judges and best interests decision-makers to quantify, compare, and calculate the different options at play. Recent judgments have critically reflected on the substance and practical function of the balance sheet approach, highlighting the practical stakes of its implicit conceptual assumptions and normative commitments. Using parallel debates in proportionality, we show that the balance sheet imports problematic assumptions of commensurability and aggregation, which can both overdetermine the outcome of best interests decisions and obfuscate the actual process of judicial deliberation.

Global Health with Justice: Controlling the Floodgates of the Upstream Determinants of Health through Evidence-Based Law.

This article introduces a special issue on the legal determinants of health, following the publication of the -O'Neill Institute of Georgetown University Commission's report on the subject. We contextualize legal determinants as a significant and vital aspect of the social determinants of health, explain the work of the -O'Neill Commission and outline where consequent research will usefully be directed. We also introduce the papers that follow in the special issue, which together set out in greater detail the work of the Commission and critically engage with different aspects of the report and the application of its findings and recommendations.

Legal, Moral and Political Determinants within the Social Determinants of Health: Approaching Transdisciplinary Challenges through Intradisciplinary Reflection.

This article provides a critical analysis of 'the legal' in the legal determinants of health, with reference to the -O'Neill report on that topic. The analysis shows how law is framed as a fluid and porous concept, with legal measures and instruments being conceived as sociopolitical phenomena. I argue that the way that laws are grounded practically as part of a broader concept of politics and evaluated normatively for their instrumental value has important implications for the study of law itself.

The two most important questions for ethical public health.

Public health ethics is a distinct and established field, and it is important that its approaches and rationales are understood widely in the public health community. Such understanding includes the capacity to identify and combine principled and practical concerns in public health. In this paper, we present a background to the ideas that motivate public health ethics as a field of research and practice, and rationalize these through a critical ethico-legal approach to analysis.

Mental Capacity Law, Autonomy, and best Interests: An Argument for Conceptual and Practical Clarity in the Court of Protection.

This article examines medical decision-making, arguing that the law, properly understood, requires where possible that equal weight be given to the wishes, feelings, beliefs, and values of patients who have, and patients who are deemed to lack, decision-making capacity. It responds critically to dominant lines of reasoning that are advanced and applied in the Court of Protection, and suggests that for patient-centred practice to be achieved, we do not need to revise the law, but do need to ensure robust interpretation and application of the law. The argument is based on conceptual analysis of the law's framing of patients and medical decisions, and legal analysis of evolving and contemporary norms governing the best interests standard.

Elective ventilation for organ donation: law, policy and public ethics.

This paper examines questions concerning elective ventilation, contextualised within English law and policy. It presents the general debate with reference both to the Exeter Protocol on elective ventilation, and the considerable developments in legal principle since the time that that protocol was declared to be unlawful. I distinguish different aspects of what might be labelled elective ventilation policies under the following four headings: 'basic elective ventilation'; 'epistemically complex elective ventilation'; 'practically complex elective ventilation'; and 'epistemically and practically complex elective ventilation'.

Would responsible medical lawyers lose their patients?

This essay presents an analytic approach to understanding patients' responsibilities. Prompted by arguments in Margaret Brazier's article 'Do No Harm--Do Patients Have Responsibilities Too?', the paper demonstrates how medical lawyers can attempt to answer the questions Brazier raises, particularly regarding the translation of ethical responsibilities into legal ones. It suggests that the expansive nature of medical law as a discipline renders increasingly unhelpful the paradigm 'autonomous patients' found in a narrowly understood medical ethics.