As the end of term quickly approaches, I have been reflecting on my experience of the LL.M. programme at Kent. Time has absolutely flown by, and I cannot believe how many interesting and topical issues we covered. I do not think I could have had a better experience studying a Masters anywhere else, or in any area outside of Medical Law and Ethics. I cannot say enough about my experience, but I thought I would share these highlights…
The seminar style classes were the perfect mode of exploring the various contentious issues within medical law and ethics. I looked forward to every seminar, eager to explore and debate the issues with a range of academics, scientists, lawyers and practitioners (i.e. GPs, IVF practitioners, nephrologists, psychologists etc.).
For anyone interested in taking this programme, I thought I would briefly describe a few of the papers I enjoyed researching and writing this academic year.
1. Death and Dying Module:
“Whose Choice is it Anyway? Making the Case for Disclosure”
This paper critically analyses two controversial areas to be addressed when discussing the ethics of disclosing pre-symptomatic test results for dementia in relation to pre-emptive suicide. The first area pertains to the disclosure of pre-symptomatic test results which triggers a myriad of ethical issues. The second area centres on pre-emptive suicide per se which raises the preliminary dispute over whether rational suicide is possible, but more importantly, whether pre-emptive suicide should be permissible. In response to these controversial matters, the principle of autonomy is applied to argue in favour of both disclosure and the permissibility of pre-emptive suicide. This position is fleshed out by countering arguments of Peter Rabins and Robert Barry, and examining the case studies of Sir Terry Pratchett and Hugo Claus. These ethical issues are highly complex, warranting further consideration and continued debate, this paper argues that the principle of autonomy could provide a useful foundation for this debate. Explored through the lens of autonomy this paper asserts that individuals should have access to information concerning their health and have the right to choose their death.
2. Privacy and Data Protection Law Module:
“Practical and Conceptual Problems with Legislating Against Genetic Discrimination”
This paper responds to the question of whether or not the UK should enact legislation similar to the American Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) to address concerns of genetic discrimination. Critical analysis of GINA and its inadequacies, paired with illuminating scholarly criticisms of the legislative approach to genetic discrimination informs the conclusion that the UK should not enact similar legislation. What emerges through analysis of the practical and conceptual criticisms of GINA and the legislative approach generally is the need for more investigatory work. Further research is required to attain a better understanding of genetic discrimination per se. Prior to taking such drastic measures as enacting legislation, the UK should invest in comprehending ‘the problem’; namely, genetic discrimination, its risks, and its implications.
3. Intellectual Property Module:
“A Two-Tiered Analysis of Issues Regarding Patents on Biotechnological Inventions”
This is an explorative paper which aims to shed light on the depth and complexity of the controversy around biotechnological patents. It conducts a two-tiered analysis to present two angles from which one might understand the rationale underpinning the suggestion that biotechnological inventions should not constitute patentable subject matter. Narrowly speaking, ambiguity within the criteria for patentable subject matter, coupled with the biological material per se, appears to raise practical challenges for the patenting of biotechnological inventions. Broadly speaking, conceptual challenges arise from ethical and moral concerns. These concerns provoke further questions about the purpose of the patent system, both what it is and what it should be. The wide range of opinions on the matter suggests that there is no simple response to the claim that biotechnological inventions should not be patentable. While this paper offers no decisive response to the controversy, it proposes that considering the two-tiers together is crucial in order to fully appreciate the remarkably complicated nature of the debate.
In writing the above papers, I learned a lot about the relevant topics, and more importantly, I refined my ability to synthesise complex information to form a compelling argument. A great skill to have for aspiring academics, and lawyers alike!
My positive experience of the LL.M. programme is a testament to the great things that come from ‘following your heart’. If I could offer one piece of advice to anyone considering an LL.M. at Kent Law School it would be this: If you are lucky enough to have found a keen interest in a particular area of law (or even an interest in deepening your knowledge of the law generally) you should grab onto it with both hands! If you are someone who has a thirst for knowledge, and an aptitude for critical analysis then treat yourself to the journey of ‘Mastering Law’. Because if you are anything like me, it will be a decision you will never regret – and an experience you will never forget!
If you have any questions about the Medical Law and Ethics LL.M. programme at Kent, please do not hesitate to contact me – Find my details: here.