Where are the carers in healthcare law and ethics?*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2018
The work of carers is too often unvalued and unrecognised. This paper seeks to demonstrate some of the ways in which law and traditional medical ethics overlook the interests of carers and the importance of their work. It argues that this is, in part, due to the individualistic ethic that has come to dominate legal and ethical discourse about medicine. It recommends an approach based on an ethic of care that seeks to promote and protect just relationships of care, rather than an individualised model of rights.
- Research Article
- Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 2007
A version of this paper was given at a seminar arranged by the Royal Institute of Philosophy at the Centre for Professional Ethics, University of Keele. I am grateful to the participants for their comments and those of two anonymous referees and Sally Sheldon.
4. Commission for Social Care Inspection The State of Social Care in England 2004–5 (London: Commission for Social Care Inspection, 2005).Google Scholar
6. Ibid, p 1. Ungerson, C Cash in care’ in Meyer, M Harrington Care Work: Gender Class and the Welfare State (London: Routledge, 2000) p 68 Google Scholar states that the government has paid only ‘lip service’ to promoting the interests of carers.
7. Immediately following this definition, the government gives the number of carers at 5.2 million; they cannot, therefore, have intended their definition to extend to parents.
9. Carers UK, above n 8, p 1.
10. Maher, J and Green, H Carers 2000 (London: Office for National Statistics, The Stationery Office, 2001).Google Scholar
11. Carers UK Without Us…? Calculating the Value of Carers’ Support (London: Carers UK, 2002).Google Scholar
13. Maher and Green, above n 10.
16. ‘Carers missing £750m benefits’ BBC Newsonline 2 December 2005.
18. Hirst, M Hearts and Minds: The Health Effects of Caring (London: Carers UK, 2004).Google Scholar
20. Keeley, B and Clarke, M Carers Speak Out Project (London: Princess Royal Trust for Carers, 2002).Google Scholar See also
22. ITV News Special Who Cares? broadcast 5 February 2006.
24. Dearden and Becker, ibid.
25. The Princess Royal Trust for Carers Eight Hours a Day and Taken for Granted (London: PRTC, 1998);Google Scholar
26. Carers UK, above n 8.
27. Fox-Rushby, J Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) for Decision-Making? (London: Office of Health Economics, 2002).Google Scholar
29. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Appraisal Consultation Document: Donepezil, Rivastigmine, Galantamine and Memantine for the Treatment of Alzheimer’s Disease (London: NICE, 2005) para 4.3.5.Google Scholar
30. Harris, above n 28.
31. Donepezil, rivastigmine and gelantamine.
32. NICE Donepezil, Galantamine, Rivastigmine (Review) and Memantine for the Treatment of Alzheimer’s Disease (Appraisal Consultation) (London: NICE, 2006) para 126.96.36.199.Google Scholar
33. Ibid, para 188.8.131.52.
34. Hunt v Severs  2 All ER 385. A useful summary and discussion of the law is found in the Law Commission Damages for Personal Injury: Medical, Nursing and Other Expenses; Collateral Benefits (Report No 262, 1999).
35. Law Commission, ibid, para 3.47.
37. B Braithwaite ‘The significance of family care for injured people’  Personal Injury Compensation 10.
38. Law Commission, above n 34, para 3.83.
39. Ibid, para 3.84.
40. I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for this point.
41. Damages Act 1996, s 2.
42. Children Act 1989, s 31.
43. As amended by the National Assistance Act 1951.
44.  EWHC 1909 (Admin),  2 FLR 1235.
45. Re F (Adult: Court’s Jurisdiction)  2 FLR 512.
46. Ibid, para .
47. Ibid, paras  and .
48.  EWHC 2278 (Admin),  1 FLR 292.
50. Section 3.
51. Section 27.
52.  2 WLR 556.
53. I have discussed this case further in J Herring ‘The welfare principle and parent’s rights’ in Bainham, A, Sclater, S Day and Richards, M What is a Parent? (Oxford: Hart, 1999).Google Scholar
54. Mental Health Act 1983, s 29.
55. Mental Health (Hospital, Guardianship and Consent to Treatment) Regulations 1983, SI 1983/2156, reg 14.
56. Clause 12(5).
58. Carers have limited rights to take (unpaid) time off work to care for a dependant. This right is found in Employment Rights Act 1996, s 57A(1).
59. Carers (Equal Opportunities) Act 2004, s 1.
60. Department of Health Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 and Carers (Equal Opportunities) Act 2004. Combined Policy Guidance (London: Department of Health, 2005) para 43.Google Scholar
61. Carers (Equal Opportunities) Act 2004, s 2.
62. Section 1.
63. Clements, above n 8, para 1.4.
64. R (on the application of Stephenson) v Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council  EWCA Civ 960,  3 FCR 248.
65. Department of Health Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000. Practice Guidance (London: The Stationery Office, 2001).Google Scholar
66. Carers UK Policy Briefing: Carers Grant Guidance Year 7 (London: Carers UK, 2006).Google Scholar
67. Carers UK Missed Opportunities: The Impact of New Rights For Carers (London: Carers UK, 2005).Google Scholar
69. Marriott, H The Selfish Pig’s Guide to Caring (Clifton-upon-Teme: Polperro, 2003) p 115.Google Scholar
70. Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983, s 17.
74. I am grateful to Rachel Taylor for some helpful advice on this section.
75. Clements, above n 8, para 4.40.
76. Da Silva Mouta v Portugal  1 FCR 653.
77. In R (on the application of Hooper) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions  UKHL 29,  1 WLR 1618, Lord Hoffmann (at para ) suggested that to fall within Art 14 the characteristic had to be at least analogous to those mentioned in Art 14. See Fredman, S Discrimination Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) p 79 Google Scholar for a powerful argument against requiring immutability for a ground of discrimination.
78. Ibid, p 82.
79. Although in R (on the application of Hooper) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions  UKHL 29, above n 77 and R (on the application of Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions  UKHL 3337,  2 WLR 1369 the House of Lords has been strict in its interpretation of Art 14.
80. Rieme v Sweden (1992) 16 EHRR 155; Cyprus v Turkey (1976) 4 EHRR 282.
81. Znamenskaya v Russia  2 FCR 406: ‘it has also been the Convention organs’ traditional approach to accept that close relationships short of “family life” would generally fall within the scope of “private life” ’ (para ).
82. Pretty v UK (2002) 35 EHRR 1 para 61.
83. Mowbray, A The Development of Positive Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights by the European Court of Human Rights (Oxford: Hart, 2003).Google Scholar
84. E v UK  FCR 700.
87. Ibid, p xv.
88. Ibid, xvii.
89. Eichner, M ‘Dependency and the liberal polity: on Martha Fineman’s The Autonomy Myth ’ (2005) 93 California Law Review 1285.Google Scholar
93. Gilligan, Eg C Moral orientation and moral development’ in Kittay, E and Meyers, D (eds) Women and Moral Theory (Totowa: Rowman and Littlefield, 1987);Google Scholar
94. Gilligan, C In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1984) p 73.Google Scholar
95. Re JS  3 FCR 433.
96. Fineman, above n 86, p xvii.
98. West, R The right to care’ in Kittay, E and Feder, E (eds) The Subject of Care: Feminist Perspectives on Dependency (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2002) p 89.Google Scholar
99. Hubbard, A The myth of independence and the major life activity of caring 2004] 8 Journal of Gender, Race and Justice 327.Google Scholar
100. McClain, L. Care as a public value: linking responsibility, resources, and republicanism’  76 Chicago-Kent Law Review 1673;Google Scholar
101. See Silbaugh, K Turning labor into love: housework and the law 1996] 91 Northwestern University Law Review 1.Google Scholar
102. Williams, J From difference to dominance to domesticity; care as work, gender as tradition’  76 Chicago-Kent Law Review 1441.Google ScholarThere would also need to be changes in the employment market to ensure that employed work was a realistic and attractive option for women:
103. Clement, G Care, Autonomy and Justice: Feminism and the Ethic of Care (New York: Westview, 1996) p 11.Google Scholar
104. Held, above n 94, p 1.
105. Ibid, p 15.
106. Ibid, p 17.
109. Gibson, D Aged Care: Old Policies, New Solutions (Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 2005).Google Scholar
110. Ungerson, C Social politics and the commodification of care 1997] 4 Social Policy 362.Google Scholar
111. Jackson, above n 1, p 22.
113. Jackson, above n 1, p 22 suggests that ethics of care has nothing to say about social policy. This is simply untrue: see, eg, Hankivsky, O Social Policy and the Ethic of Care (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2005).Google Scholar
114. Gilligan, C In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1982) pp 1–4 and 24–63.Google Scholar
115. Hankivsky, above n 113, p 2.
116. Repeats of the experiments used by Carol Gilligan in European countries have not found the differing responses to ethical issues tied to sex in the way she did: Vikan, A, Camino, C and Biaggio, A ‘Note on a cross-cultural test of Gilligan’s ethic of care’ (2005) 34 Journal of Moral Education 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
118. Jackson, above n 1, at 22.
119. The payment of carers has been said to carry dangers of causing the ‘marketisation of intimacy and the commodification of care’; Ungerson, C ‘Cash in care’ in Meyer, M Harrington (ed) Care Work: Gender Class and the Welfare State (London: Routledge, 2000) p 69.Google Scholar
121. For a development of this approach in relation to parents and children, see J Herring ‘The Human Rights Act and the welfare principle in family law – conflicting or complementary?’  CFLQ 223.
122. C Koggel ‘Care and justice; re-examined and revised’  Paideia 24 December.
125. Commission for Social Care Inspection Leaving Hospital Revisited (London: Commission for Social Care Inspection, 2005).Google Scholar
129. Clements, above n 49.
130. Department of Health More Older People to be given Choice to Live at Home (London: Department of Health, 2006).Google Scholar
133. Marriott, above n 69, p 9.
135. Hubbard, above n 99; Ungerson, above n 110.
136. Department of Health, above n 57, para 69.