A central tenet to much ethical argument within medical law is patient autonomy. Although we have seen a welcome move away from a system governed by largely unchecked paternalism, there is not universal agreement on the direction in which medical law should advance. Competing concerns for greater welfare and individual freedom, complicated by an overarching commitment to value-pluralism, make this a tricky area of policy-development. Furthermore, there are distinct understandings of, and justifications for, different conceptions of autonomy. In this paper, we argue that in response to these issues, there has been a failure by the courts properly to distinguish political concepts of liberty and moral concepts of autonomy.
On October 28, 1886, U.S. president Grover Cleveland, the former New York governor, presided the dedication ceremony of the Statue of Liberty, a gift to the United States from the people of France.
Golden Liberty (Latin: Aurea Libertas; Polish: Złota Wolność), sometimes referred to as Golden Freedoms, Nobles' Democracy or Nobles' Commonwealth (Polish: Rzeczpospolita Szlachecka or Złota Wolność, Latin: áurea libertas) refers to a unique aristocratic political system in the Kingdom of Poland and later, after the Union of Lublin (1569), in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
ID cards and detention without trial get plenty of coverage – but many other recent laws have ramifications for individual freedom. As the Convention on Modern Liberty approaches, Comment is free contributors look at how they could affect everyone – from infants to football fans, NHS patients and anti-Heathrow protesters