- Published on
Medical Law - Reasonable, just, and fair
If it would be "fair, just, and reasonable" to impose an obligation under the circumstances, it would be the third factor in establishing a duty of care. It is fair, reasonable, and reasonable that a duty of care will develop in the setting of health care once a doctor has accepted a patient. It is less common to find a duty of care in situations other than those involving a doctor and patient.
Tees Health Authority v. Palmer [1999] REP MED 151 FOR LLOYD After her daughter was killed by a mentally ill patient, a woman claimed to be in nervous shock. The health authority knew that the patient was aggressive when they were discharged from the hospital, thus the question for the court was whether they had a duty of care to the victim's mother and whether they had a duty to society. The Court of Appeal ruled that while it was expected that the patient would hurt someone, it was not possible to anticipate that a specific member of the public would suffer injury. Therefore, forcing the health authority to fulfill a duty of care would be unfair, unjust, and unreasonable. Though this is a potentially developing field of law, this case highlights the court's unwillingness to find a duty of care in the absence of a proximate link.
ABC v. NHS Foundation Trust St George's Healthcare [2017] CIV 336 EWCA
The claimant's father was found guilty of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished culpability after killing her mother. He refused to tell his daughters—one of whom was pregnant at the time—that he had been diagnosed with Huntington's disease, an inherited, incurable, and eventually fatal ailment that causes brain damage, behavioral changes, and violence. A child has a 50% risk of inheriting Huntington's disease from a parent who has the illness. The claimant, a single mother, received an unintentional notification of her father's disease after her daughter was born and had genetic testing done. Her test results for the illness came back positive. She filed a lawsuit, claiming the medical facility had a duty of care to her. The hospital did not violate the claimant's Article 8 ECHR rights or owe her a duty of care, so the claim was first dismissed. This ruling was overturned by the Court of Appeal, which decided that a trial should take place in this matter. Given that Huntingdon's illness is inherited, it was probably equitable and reasonable to impose a duty of care on a medical professional treating a patient to reveal the diagnosis.
A doctor advised a patient about contraception in Goodwill v. BPAS [1996]. The court decided that as the doctor may have been reasonably expected to bear the patient's spouse in mind when giving advise, the doctor might have owed the patient's spouse a duty of care. This is predicated on the idea that under certain conditions, a proximate link might exist.
If it would be "fair, just, and reasonable" to impose an obligation under the circumstances, it would be the third factor in establishing a duty of care. It is fair, reasonable, and reasonable that a duty of care will develop in the setting of health care once a doctor has accepted a patient. It is less common to find a duty of care in situations other than those involving a doctor and patient.
Tees Health Authority v. Palmer [1999] REP MED 151 FOR LLOYD After her daughter was killed by a mentally ill patient, a woman claimed to be in nervous shock. The health authority knew that the patient was aggressive when they were discharged from the hospital, thus the question for the court was whether they had a duty of care to the victim's mother and whether they had a duty to society. The Court of Appeal ruled that while it was expected that the patient would hurt someone, it was not possible to anticipate that a specific member of the public would suffer injury. Therefore, forcing the health authority to fulfill a duty of care would be unfair, unjust, and unreasonable. Though this is a potentially developing field of law, this case highlights the court's unwillingness to find a duty of care in the absence of a proximate link.
ABC v. NHS Foundation Trust St George's Healthcare [2017] CIV 336 EWCA
The claimant's father was found guilty of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished culpability after killing her mother. He refused to tell his daughters—one of whom was pregnant at the time—that he had been diagnosed with Huntington's disease, an inherited, incurable, and eventually fatal ailment that causes brain damage, behavioral changes, and violence. A child has a 50% risk of inheriting Huntington's disease from a parent who has the illness. The claimant, a single mother, received an unintentional notification of her father's disease after her daughter was born and had genetic testing done. Her test results for the illness came back positive. She filed a lawsuit, claiming the medical facility had a duty of care to her. The hospital did not violate the claimant's Article 8 ECHR rights or owe her a duty of care, so the claim was first dismissed. This ruling was overturned by the Court of Appeal, which decided that a trial should take place in this matter. Given that Huntingdon's illness is inherited, it was probably equitable and reasonable to impose a duty of care on a medical professional treating a patient to reveal the diagnosis.
A doctor advised a patient about contraception in Goodwill v. BPAS [1996]. The court decided that as the doctor may have been reasonably expected to bear the patient's spouse in mind when giving advise, the doctor might have owed the patient's spouse a duty of care. This is predicated on the idea that under certain conditions, a proximate link might exist.
0 Comments