What's in a Name? Labelling Effects on Analysis of the Role of Law in Health

Abstract

This paper considers some of the labels that have been used by scholars to define and theorise our subject area and which we are now being invited to re-imagine. These include, in roughly chronological order from my working lifetime, ‘Law, Ethics and Medicine’, ‘Medical Law and Ethics’, ‘Law and Medical Ethics’, Medicine, Patients and the Law’, ‘Medical Law’, ‘Health Care Law’, Public Health Law, Health Law. These reflect the period of academic consolidation that occurred as the subject that Margot Brazier and I have elsewhere discussed as ‘modern medical law’ took shape in the decades since it ‘emerged’ in the early 1980s. We have argued that an historical perspective demonstrates that the way lawyers ‘imagined’ the subject in the last quarter of the Twentieth Century was blinkered and neglected the long history of engagement between health and law. We showed how this neglect led to ‘myths’ taking root that constrained the development of legal scholarship and practice. This is one of the reasons why it is important to consider how ‘imaginaries’ have shaped our perspectives and understandings. We need to do this in order to take stock of how we might best position our efforts in the future. Our earlier paper deferred consideration of the question of the best name for our field of study, but I address that issue in this piece.