Altruism, Welfare and the Law

89 Pages·2015·1.009 MB·English

by  Charles Foster, Jonathan Herring (auth.)

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN LAW
Charles Foster
Jonathan Herring
Altruism, Welfare
and the Law
123
SpringerBriefs in Law
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10164
Charles Foster Jonathan Herring
(cid:129)
Altruism, Welfare
and the Law
123
CharlesFoster JonathanHerring
Green TempletonCollege Exeter College
University of Oxford University of Oxford
Oxford Oxford
UK UK
ISSN 2192-855X ISSN 2192-8568 (electronic)
SpringerBriefs inLaw
ISBN978-3-319-21604-1 ISBN978-3-319-21605-8 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-21605-8
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2015944508
SpringerChamHeidelbergNewYorkDordrechtLondon
©TheAuthor(s)2015
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpart
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
orinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar
methodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfrom
therelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authorsortheeditorsgiveawarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinor
foranyerrorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.
Printedonacid-freepaper
SpringerInternationalPublishingAGSwitzerlandispartofSpringerScience+BusinessMedia
(www.springer.com)
Foreword
Giventhecentralitytofamilylawoftheconceptsofwelfareandbestinterests,itis
noteworthy, though probably unsurprising, that judges have tended to show little
curiosityinteasingoutwhattheseveryfamiliarwordsmean.Morepuzzlingiswhy
the Academy should have shown so little interest.
There is an important doctoral thesis waiting to be written on the history of the
welfare principle and of how the understanding and application of the concept has
changed down the years. It would require the skills of someone who is both a
black-letter legal historian and a legal sociologist, which is perhaps why it has not
yet been done.
This is not that book, but it is, if anything, even more important. It is an
examination of the issue from an ethical and philosophical perspective by two
distinguished academics. They emphasise the importance of understanding the
particular unique child or incapacitous adult in the particular circumstances he or
she is in and the relationships within which the child or incapacitous adult lives.
Theyarguethatourtaskistoenablechildrenandadultslackingcapacitytoflourish
inthecontextofgoodrelationships.But,theyemphasise,goodrelationshipsentail
give and take, and responsibilities as well as rights. Accordingly, they suggest,
properly understood, the notions of well-being and best interests include relation-
ality, altruism and virtue.
Atfirstblush,thismayseemstrangetothelawyeraccustomedtothedogmathat
thecourtisconcernedwiththeinterestsofparentsandthirdpartiesonlyinsofaras
theybearonthewelfareofthechildorincapacitousadult;asourauthorsputit,the
routine assumption that the only relevant perspective is that of the child or inca-
pacitous adult, viewed as an atomistic entity. The authors provocatively argue,
however, that their analysis is consonant with the way the courts have in fact
understood welfare and best interests, that their explanation of best interests and
welfare merely makes explicit what the courts are actually doing. This is heady
stuff,whichtheyseektomakegoodbyaninterestinganalysisofanumberofrecent
cases. Finally, they test their arguments, and the principles they claim to have
derived from them, against six problems of real life.
v
vi Foreword
The thesis is clearly and attractively presented and compellingly argued. It
carries conviction. It even provides, it might be thought, the answer to a
long-standing problem for which the courts have never had a coherent solution.
How is the judge to give effect to the welfare test when faced with two children
whose interests conflict? Even more puzzling, how is the judge to decide between
the conflicting interests of a child and her mother when the mother is herself a
child?
Readers—andIhopethat many family lawyers andfamilyjudges will readthis
book—must decide for themselves whether or not they are persuaded. What is
apparent, however, is that our authors have given us all—dare I say, judges in
particular—much to think about.
May 2015 James Munby
Contents
1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2 Altruism and Community: A Biological and Philosophical
History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 The Evolution of Altruism and Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3 Religion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4 The Classical World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4.1 Homer and the Heroic Ideal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4.2 From Heroic to Civic Virtues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4.3 The Classical World After Aristotle. . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.5 From Antiquity to the Renaissance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.6 The Enlightenment to the 19th Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.7 The 19th Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.8 The 20th and 21st Centuries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.9 Our Perception of What Makes Us Thrive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.9.1 The Imperative of Authenticity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.9.2 The Importance of Community Size . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.9.3 Mirror Neurons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.9.4 Being Religious . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.9.5 Happy Personalities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.9.6 The Happiness of Spending Money on Others . . . . . 27
2.9.7 Happiness and Work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.9.8 Happiness, Health and Altruism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.10 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3 Rethinking the Welfare and Best Interest Principles. . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.2 An Overarching Theme: Relational Best Interests . . . . . . . . . 34
vii
viii Contents
3.3 Autonomy, Interdependence and Vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.4 Understanding a Good Relationship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.4.1 Meeting Needs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.4.2 Respect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.4.3 Responsibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.4.4 Relationality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.5 The Nature and Significance of Abuse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.6 The Importance of Taking the Longer View. . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.7 The Importance of Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.8 The Importance of Looking at the Particular Case. . . . . . . . . 45
3.9 Criticisms of Relational Welfare. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.9.1 Lack of Protection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.9.2 Unpredictability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.9.3 Can the Incapacitous Display Virtue? . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.10 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4 What Do the Courts Do? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.2 The Statutory Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.3 The Interpretation of the Welfare and Best Interests Tests . . . 55
4.4 The Importance of the Relational Context in Mental Capacity
Act Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4.4.1 Great Western NHS Trust v AA [2014]
EWHC 132 (Fam). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.4.2 Ahsan v Universities Hospital Leicester [2006]
EWHC 2624 (QB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.4.3 A Local Authority v A and B [2010]
EWHC 978 (Fam). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.4.4 A Local Authority v WMA [2013]
EWCOP 2580 (Fam). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.4.5 NHS Trust v DE [2013] EWHC 2562 (Fam) . . . . . . 60
4.4.6 A LA v JH [2011] EWHC 2420 (COP). . . . . . . . . . 61
4.4.7 Statutory Provisions About Medical Research. . . . . . 62
4.5 The Importance of Altruism and Virtue in Mental Capacity
Act Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4.5.1 Re X, Y and Z [2014] EWHC 87 (COP). . . . . . . . . 62
4.5.2 RE G(T) [2010] EWHC 3005 (Fam). . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.5.3 LG v DK [2011] EWHC 2453 (COP) . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.5.4 The Mental Capacity Act Code of Practice. . . . . . . . 64
4.6 The Welfare Principle in Family Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.7 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Contents ix
5 Putting It into Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
5.2 Scenario 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
5.3 Scenario 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
5.4 Scenario 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
5.5 Scenario 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
5.6 Scenario 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
5.7 Scenario 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
5.8 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81