Suicide and coronial problems.

Suicide problems for the coroner may be increased by the attitude of the family and/or the public. This article explores the nature of problems arising from an investigation and a finding of suicide and the issues of the burden of proof, the role of coroner and of a jury when one is needed and the significance of suicide finding which may affect an insurance claim, or potential inheritance. What reforms should be considered?

Obstetrics and gynaecology and the law.

Litigation over medical mishaps - NHS Resolution - extent of damages and costs - the relationship between doctor and midwife - celebrated or notorious cases, Mid Staffs, Morecambe Bay, Northwick Park - informing patient of risks - meaning of wrongful birth - contemporary tests for negligence.

Forensic Science Regulator: The Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021.

Deficiencies in performance in forensic science have led to the need for a statutory regulator with powers over standards and performance, investigation, compliance and enforcement.

A new wrinkle in Montgomery? The surgeon faces the unexpected.

The surgeon is consulted by the patient, the situation is fully explained to the patient, the patient agrees to the operation. The patient is anaesthetised. An unexpected situation arises, things are not as the surgeon had imagined. Should he carry on and hope for the best? Or call the whole thing off? The law.

Assisted dying.

Encouraging or assisting suicide, the legal situation, attempts to change the law, the case for and against.

Andrew Malkinson: A miscarriage of justice?

In the case of Andrew Malkinson, a number of concerning or disturbing features about the conduct of the case by all involved have emerged. Application is therefore being made to the Criminal Cases Review Commission to reconsider and refer the case.

Do not resuscitate: Lawful or unlawful?

When is it lawful not to resuscitate and when is it unlawful? What is the meaning of mental capacity on the part of the patient and what is meant by patient autonomy? What is the extent of clinical discretion in decisions not to resuscitate? Does the presumption in favour of life still obtain? What about the risks in cardiopulmonary resuscitation? What have the judges decided about decisions not to resuscitate, and what is the contemporary role of the doctor in this area? Is there any need for change or reform?

The doctor in a minority.

Suppose that a doctor carrying out a treatment or advising on a treatment or acting as an expert in litigation or writing or lecturing about a treatment is in a minority so far as contemporary medical opinion is concerned. It may be a matter of choice for the doctor between treatment A (the majority practice) or treatment B (the minority practice), and the minority treatment may be of an innovative character. Unfortunately, things went badly wrong, the patient suffered harm and the doctor finds him/herself a defendant in a case for clinical negligence. What is the legal duty of the doctor? Is it sufficient that he/she acted in good faith? Or that he/she was a competent doctor? Or that he/she was a doctor following the practice of a substantial number of doctors, albeit a minority? Or that he/she was in effect acting 'on his/her own'? The legal test is: Was the doctor following the practice of a responsible body of medical clinical opinion, albeit a minority opinion? Medicine has made huge advances over the years - one of the great achievements. But many advances have come about because of the initiative of one individual or a small group of individuals, often in the face of strong disbelief or opposition. The medical profession is a conservative profession, understandably so in view of the obvious inherent risks. Original ideas may not be well received. Therefore, the minority innovative doctor must proceed carefully because he/she runs the risk of a medical mishap, criticism and litigation.

Coronavirus Act 2020: An overview by a lawyer interested in medico-legal matters.

The Act and the regulations. How long they might last. The suspension of the renewals. Enforcement and the role of the police. Protection of whistleblowers. The trial scene. The ultimate impact.

Surrogacy and the law: Possible reforms.

A consideration of the concept, law and practice of surrogacy, and the merits and demerits of the concept. A discussion of payments, foreign surrogacies, delay in finality, and the need for control and regulation.

Dispute between the family of the very seriously ill patient and the doctors.

The decided cases on disputes between the doctor and the family of the patient. A consideration of the relevant factors, such as the prognosis, the quality of life, the wishes of the patient, the tolerability of the patient, futility, dignity. Discussion of possible alternatives, such as wait and see. Ultimately the best interests of the patient must prevail.

The liability of the doctor and the health authority when the mental health patient is discharged or released on leave or escapes and something goes amiss.

This study describes the legal liabilities when the discharged or released on leave patient harms himself or a third party. The nature of the duty of the doctor and the hospital are explained.

The NHS refuses treatment.

This article considers situations where treatment is refused and whether this is reasonable taking into account statutory duties, efficacy of treatment, the role and advice of NICE, local and general resources. What should be the priorities for treatment? Eligibility for treatment, the economic case for an early intervention and/or preventative medicine, caesarean sections, human rights, examples from the cases.

What can be done to reduce the damages, costs and fees paid out by the NHS for claims for clinical negligence?

This article considers different approaches with a view to reducing NHS legal costs and damages for clinical failures on the basis that these are out of control and reducing resources for the treatment of current and future patients.

The doctor, negligence and causation: A lawyer's exposition to doctors, scientists and lawyers.

The brief history of causation in medicine and science. The law. Setting the scene. Negligence but no causation. Duty to warn. PROGNOSIS: Loss of opportunity. Consecutive negligence. Indivisible injury. Unknown culprits. Obstetrics. The European Court of Justice. The future.