If a pregnant woman refuses medical treatment needed by the fetus - for instance for religious reasons - or conducts some aspect of her life in a way which risks fetal harm, there may arise an instance of "maternal-fetal conflict". This is an unfortunate term, since pregant women are generally renowned for their self-sacrificing behaviour, but it may well reflect the reality of certain maternal choices and actions. Should a pregnant woman have the legal right to refuse medical treatment needed by the fetus, or should she owe it a legal duty of care which precludes her acting in ways which may harm it? Does the debate hinge simply upon the appropriateness, or otherwise, of legally compelling presumed moral obligations, or is it more complex than this? Indeed, what are a pregnant woman't moral obligations towards her fetus? In England and in some US states, courts have held that a pregnant woman has the right to refuse medical treatment needed by the fetus. In similar fashion, the idea of a general maternal legal duty of care toward the fetus has been rejected, most recently in Canada. The cases, however, leave the impression of an uncomfortable split between the ethics and the law, as if the problem were entirely one of not legally enforcing presumed moral duties. The effect is both puzzling and polarising: puzzling in that the cases leave unanswered - as largely they must - the huge question of a pregnant woman's moral rights and duties; polarising in that the cases leave troubling tensions about a pregnant woman's rights in the face of fetal harm or death. The tendency is to deny these by ever more strongly asserting a woman's rights. In turn this encourages a reaction in favour of fetal rights, one which is unlikely to attend to a woman's interests and difficulties in pregnancy. This could have serious legal repercussions for various instances of maternal-fetal conflict, including in those US states or other jurisdictions which have yet to address these issues. It might also increase the pressures on the issue of abortion. This book, which seeks a way between these polarised positions, tries to explain and justify a woman's moral and legal rights in pregnancy and, at the same time, to explore the extent of her moral duties toward the fetus. The aim is to resolve, as far as possible, the ethical, legal and social tensions which undoubtedly surround this area. Innovatively in work on this issue (and unusually in the field of medical law and ethics) the author adopts a joint philosophical and legal approach directed to issues both of principle and policy, revealing strong conceptual links between the ethics and the law. In addition to an ethical exploration of the maternal-fetal relationship, the author explores and analyses the relevant English, American, Canadian (and sometimes Australian) arguments from the law of treatment refusal, abortion, tort and rescue, as well as relevant jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights. This important book breaks new ground and will be of great interest to academics in law and philosophy, lawyers, health professionals, policy-makers and students of medical law and ethics. "It is rare to find a book which so skilfully combines legal and moral analysis of a controversial medical issue. Rosamund Scott has produced what is undoubtedly one of the finest pieces of medico-legal writing of recent years. This is a clever, human and immensely readable work." Alexander McCall Smith, Professor of Medical Law, University of Edinburgh "This book concerns one of the most personally agonizing and morally complex issues in medical ethics. It is a work of great philosophical sophistication, combining breadth of vision with acute sensitivity to the nuances of women's experiences. It will soon become the standard work in philosophical, legal and political debate on maternal-fetal conflicts." Roger Crisp, Uehiro Fellow and Tutor in Philosophy, St Anne's College, Oxford

Industrial Growth forms one of the basis for Nation's development. Industrial growth can be achieved only if there is cordial industrial relationship between the employer and the employees. The need of the hour is balancing act between "Labour Rights, Duties & Corporate Growth". There are three important players in Industrial Relations namely employer, employee and government. The subject of Labour Law is grooming in importance every day as it affects a number of people directly and indirectly. The aim of Labour Law is the promotion of social justice and equity.

"... Multiple generations in families as well as their wider communities have clearly defined responsibilities for care and nutrition, for the equitable distribution of social and economic resources within the family unit, and for the protection of individual members. However, governments also have responsibilities to ensure that family members are protected, especially those who are vulnerable or dependent. If the family environment becomes noxious for its members and subjects them to abuse and neglect, then governments have a responsibility to take appropriate action to address the situation. In summary, the perspective indicates that while it is the role of the family to nurture, care for and protect children and other vulnerable family members, governments also have a role in providing adequate resources to enable them to do so. Clearly then, rights and responsibilities accrue to the state as well as to families .." -- Introduction: rights, responsibilities, and social investment [by] Rajen Prasad (page vii).

The European Court of Human Rights is one of the main players in interpreting international human rights law where issues of general international law arise. While developing its own jurisprudence for the protection of human rights in the European context, it remains embedded in the developments of general international law. However, because the Court does not always follow general international law closely and develops its own doctrines, which are, in turn, influential for national courts as well as other international courts and tribunals, a feedback loop of influence occurs. This book explores the interaction, including the problems arising in the context of human rights, between the European Convention on Human Rights and general international law. It contributes to ongoing debates on the fragmentation and convergence of international law from the perspective of international judges as well as academics. Some of the chapters suggest reconciling methods and convergence while others stress the danger of fragmentation. The focus is on specific topics which have posed special problems, namely sources, interpretation, jurisdiction, state responsibility and immunity.

The history of human rights suggests that individuals should be empowered in their natural, political, political, social and economic vulnerabilities. States within the international arena hold each other responsible for doing just that and support or interfere where necessary. States are to protect these essential human vulnerabilities, even when this is not a matter of self-interest. This function of human rights is recognized in contexts of intervention, genocide, humanitarian aid and development. This book develops the idea of environmental obligations as long-term responsibilities in the context of human rights. It proposes that human rights require recognition that, in the face of unsustainable conduct, future human persons are exposed and vulnerable. It explores the obstacles for long-term responsibilities that human rights law provides at the level of international and national law and challenges the question of whether lifestyle restrictions are enforceable in view of liberties and levels of wellbeing typically seen as protected by human rights. The book will be of interest to postgraduates studying Human Rights, Sustainability, Law and Philosophy.