Mary Donnelly

The reality of current clinical practice in the UK is that where a patient’s family refuses to agree to testing for brain stem death (BD), such cases will ultimately end up in court. This situation is true of both adults and children and reinforced by recent legal cases. While recourse to the courts might be regrettable in such tragic cases, if public trust in the medical diagnosis of BD is to be maintained all aspects of the process must be conducted in a way that is transparent and open to scrutiny. This is not an ‘ineffective expenditure’ of resources, but an essential element of a human rights-compliant legal system.

Canada has recently published a new Clinical Practice Guideline on the diagnosis and management of brain death. It states that consent is not necessary to carry out the interventions required to make the diagnosis. A supporting article not only sets out the arguments for this but also contends that ‘UK laws similarly carve out an exception, excusing clinicians from a prima facie duty to get consent’. This is supplemented by the claim that recent court decisions in the UK similarly confirm that consent is not required, referencing two judgements inBattersbee. We disagree with the authors’ interpretation of the law on consent in the UK and argue that there is nothing inBattersbeeto support the conclusion that consent to testing is not necessary. Where there is a disagreement about testing for brain death in the UK, court authorisation is required.

The decision of the House of Lords in Gillick v West Norfolk Area Health Authority carved out a safe space for competent minors to confidentially access sexual and reproductive health care and advice in the UK. Ireland is one of the few common law jurisdictions that has not endorsed Gillick or a similar mature minor doctrine, nor has it securely legislated for the right to consent of those aged 16 and 17 years. The legal lacuna created by this deficiency has left young persons in Ireland seeking sexual and reproductive healthcare, and the clinicians who provide this, in a challenging place. While this void has been partially filled with policy statements by bodies such as the Irish College of General Practitioners and the Health Service Executive, nonetheless the legal shortcomings leave both a sense of insecurity, and real world difficulties for adolescents seeking to access to sexual and reproductive healthcare.

This paper will focus on the ways in which white feminist academics commit epistemic injustice in their approach to the work of women of color. Drawing from feminist epistemology, particularly the works of Miranda Fricker, Gaile Pohlhaus, and Kristie Dotson, I aim to show that white feminist academics’ treatment of WOC’s work takes the form of willful hermeneutical ignorance that results in contributory injustice. Among the objections I address is the concern that attempts to solve the problem of contributory injustice may lead to the epistemic exploitation of WOC, as well as the fact that WFAs themselves face a second-class status within academic philosophy.