We must follow California’s example and repeal archaic HIV laws

The BMJ Opinion, 15 December 2017
Author: Sofia Gruskin
“Recently, my home state of California made national headlines when it repealed an HIV criminalisation law and reduced penalties for exposing other people to the virus. It was a landmark decision grounded in science and human rights that will go into effect next month.”
Find article here.

Scores of women say top UK surgeon left them with traumatic complications

The Guardian, 25 November 2017
Author: Hannah Devlin
“A group of 100 women are considering legal action against Britain’s most influential pelvic surgeon, claiming that operations he conducted left them with traumatic, life-altering complications. They claim that Anthony Dixon, a consultant colorectal surgeon at Southmead hospital in Bristol and the private Spire Bristol hospital, was too quick to recommend invasive surgical procedures to deal with pelvic problems.”
Find article here.

Is Japan losing the fight against smoke-free legislation?

The BMJ Opinion, 24 October 2017
Author: Yusuke Tsugawa, Ken Hashimoto et al
“The WHO published a report earlier this year on the global tobacco epidemic in which it reported that comprehensive smoke-free legislation is in place to protect approximately 1.5 billion people in 55 countries. Currently, as many as 168 countries—including Japan—have signed the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). However, Japan’s tobacco policy lags behind the FCTC’s standard and is currently ranked the lowest level for smoke-free policy in the world.”
Find article here.

Has the right to breach patient confidentiality created a common law duty to warn genetic relatives?

QUT Law Review Volume 17, Issue 1, pp.147–159
Author: Wendy Nixon
“This paper discusses the conflict between a medical practitioner’s duty of care and duty to maintain patient confidentiality, and their statutory right to inform a relative about a possible genetic condition. The statutory right arguably creates a Rogers v Whitaker type duty to provide the same information a patient might require in order to make informed choices about testing and treatment. In the event that reasonable clinical judgment is not applied to disclosure, the genetic relative ought to be offered the opportunity to seek redress through the common law if they suffer harm as a result.”
Find article here.