IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v29y2021i2p337-346..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A NHS Foundation Trust v MC [2020] EWCOP 33: Revisiting Best Interests and ‘Altruistic’ Incapacitous Stem Cell Donation

Author

Listed:
  • Bonnie Venter

Abstract

In A NHS Foundation Trust v MC, the Court of Protection revisits the question of whether adults should be allowed to act as bone marrow or peripheral blood stem cell donors if they lack decision-making capacity. This case note explores the positive and problematic implications of the case based on points that were raised in the judicial reasoning that specifically relate to i) practical implications concerning the key players in this environment, ii) the risk analysis within the best interest determination, iii) altruism and iv) the wider context as it relates to minor donors who lack capacity.

Suggested Citation

  • Bonnie Venter, 2021. "A NHS Foundation Trust v MC [2020] EWCOP 33: Revisiting Best Interests and ‘Altruistic’ Incapacitous Stem Cell Donation," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(2), pages 337-346.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:29:y:2021:i:2:p:337-346.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwab001
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:29:y:2021:i:2:p:337-346.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/medlaw .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.