Welcome to another blog post!
As I’m sure a bunch of you are already aware, I have a Master’s degree in Medical Law and Ethics. It was one of the most thought-provoking things I have ever been through, and there were quite a few cases that stuck with me and I thought I would share 5 of them with you today!
Some of these are of real significance and some are just heartbreaking to hear. Without further ado, let’s get to it.
ABC v St George’s Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 336
In this case, the claimant’s father was diagnosed with Huntington’s disease. Huntington’s disease is a hereditary condition but he was under psychiatric care at the time, and refused to give consent for doctors to inform his adult doctor about his diagnosis. His daughter was pregnant at the time but doctors followed the claimant’s father’s wishes and did not inform the daughter. She was only told accidentally after giving birth and soon found out she had the disease herself. She sued the NHS Trust, arguing that she had been told, it would have allowed her to make more of an informed choice with regard to having children.
Bawa-Garba v General Medical Council [2018] EWCA Civ 187
In this case, a paediatric trainee was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter following the death of a six year old child. The death was due to a series of clinical errors made. These include failures to diagnose sepsis and escalate care. The paediatric trainee was suspended by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service for 12 months. However, the General Medical Council appealed, arguing that the trainee should be erased from the medical register completely. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, making note of the fact the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service did not give enough weight to the seriousness of the offence, the need to maintain confidence from the public in the profession, and the idea that a conviction of gross negligence manslaughter should require erasure.
Tameside and Glossop Acute Services Trust v CH [1996] 1 FLR 762
This case concerned a pregnant woman with a severe mental illness. She was detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 but refused to offer her consent for a caesarean section. The doctors involved in her care thought the caesarean was necessary to save the life of her child. The NHS Trust sought for a declaration that it would be lawful to perform this procedure without her consent. The court found that the woman lacked capacity to decide whether to proceed with the procedure or not because her decision making was impaired by her mental disorder. Therefore, it was in her best interests to carry out the caesarean.
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310 (HL)
This case arose from the Hillsborough Disaster in 1989, in which 97 Liverpool fans were unlawfully killed at an FA Cup semi-final at Hillsborough Stadium. The claimants in this case were relatives and/or friends of the victims involved. They suffered with psychiatric illnesses after witnessing the disaster/the aftermath of the disaster through being at the stadium, on live TV or learning about it after-the-fact. The claimants argued negligence the police, with the court having to decide whether claimants could recover damages for psychiatric harm as secondary victims, given the manner and proximity in which they experienced the events. A criteria was established by the House of Lord that would allow a secondary victim to be successful in a claim of negligence. However, in this case, they were not successful with meeting that criteria.
Re A (conjoined twins) [2001] 2 WLR 480
This case concerned infant conjoined twins ‘Jodie’ and Mary’. ‘Jodie’ had a functioning heart and lungs, whereas ‘Mary’ had to rely on Jodie’s blood supply. The doctors involved advised that ‘Jodie’ could go on to live if an operation to separate them went ahead. However, ‘Mary’ would die as a result of this operation. If the operation didn’t go ahead, both twins would die. The parents opposed the operation and refused to give their consent on religious grounds. The hospital went to the court to seek a declaration that separation would be lawful. When this was given, the parents appealed to the Court of Appeal but they upheld the decision.
And that’s it! I hope you enjoyed this post and appreciated something different. Thank you so much for taking the time out of your day to read this post and I will see you soon for another one!
Beth
Beth Olivia 