Sandra Battersby v Allan; Darrel Battersby v Allan [2017] NSWSC 1724

Decision date: 15 December 2017
“EVIDENCE – Expert evidence – Proceedings alleging negligence by a Neurosurgeon – Where plaintiff sought to rely upon the evidence of a Neurologist – Whether Neurologist had the requisite specialised knowledge based upon training study and experience to express an opinion regarding surgery – Opinion admissible.”
Find decision here.

The surgeon who signed patients’ livers was silly, not criminal. The law is an ass

The Guardian, 16 December 2017
Author: Henry Marsh
“Last Wednesday Simon Bramhall, a consultant surgeon specialising in liver transplantation, pleaded guilty in Birmingham crown court to “assault by beating”. He awaits sentencing. On two occasions during liver transplantation surgery – a highly complex and difficult procedure – he had signed his initials on the surface of his patients’ organs using an argon gas coagulator.”
Find article here.

Health Care Professionals and Law Enforcement

NEJM, 8 November 2017
Author: Arthur R. Derse
“Health care professionals generally have a respectful, sometimes even friendly, attitude toward law enforcement. We may feel we’re on the same team as the police when we’re treating victims of crime, and police may be called to protect us from people who seek to harm us in the hospital. Some health care professionals in emergency departments or intensive care units may have frequent interactions with police officers who are investigating alleged crimes. But the relationship may be profoundly tested when health care professionals refuse demands from law enforcement that conflict with what we understand to be our professional obligations.”
Find article here.

Does section 63 of the Mental Health Act 1983 disempower patients with mental illness? Analysis of the case law

Medico-Legal Journal, 2 November 2017
Author: Bhanuka Senasinghe
“In England and Wales, detained psychiatric inpatients are treated under section 63 of the Mental Health Act 1983. This paper critically analyses the relevant law and considers the arbitrary distinctions between consent for treatments for mental illnesses and physical conditions, which may disempower patients with mental illness. Section 63 states that (for detained psychiatric patients) consent for medical treatment for patients’ mental disorder is not required. The treating clinician responsible for a patient decides what this medical treatment entails. This article focuses on three main legal cases: B v Croydon Health Authority, Tameside and Glossop v CH and Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust v RC and considers whether s 63 disempowers patients with mental illnesses.”
Find article here.

Court rules hospital can withdraw life support for sick baby

KFOR, 27 June 2017
Author: Nadia Judith Enchassi
“The European Court of Human Rights ruled Tuesday a hospital can discontinue life support to a baby suffering from a rare genetic disease. Born in August, Charlie Gard has a rare genetic disorder caused by a genetic mutation that leads to weakened muscles and organ dysfunction, among other symptoms, with a poor prognosis for most patients. Charlie is on life support and has been in the intensive care unit at the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children in London since October. His doctors wish to take him off life support, but his parents disagreed.”
Find article here.

A Clinic Mix-Up Leaves Pregnant Woman In Dark About Zika Risk

KHN, 21 June 2017
Author: Jonel Aleccia
“Hospital officials in Washington state have apologized after failing for months to inform a pregnant woman she was likely infected with the Zika virus that can cause devastating birth defects. Andrea Pardo was tested for the virus in October, after becoming pregnant while living in Mexico. The results were ready by December, but she wasn’t notified until April just before she delivered her daughter. The delay, blamed on a mistake at the University of Washington clinic where Pardo received care, deprived her of the chance to make an informed choice about her pregnancy.”
Find article here.

Pfizer, Roche and Aspen face South African probe into cancer drug prices

Reuters, 14 June 2017
Authors: Paul Arnold, Tiisetso Motsoeneng
“South Africa’s competition watchdog has launched an investigation into three drug companies accused of over-charging for cancer medicines, the agency’s chief said on Tuesday. The Commission, which investigates cases before bringing them to the Competition Tribunal for adjudication, said it suspected the lung cancer treatment xalkori crizotinib sold by Pfizer had been excessively priced as has the breast cancer drugs Herceptin and Herclon sold by Roche. It Commission also would look into whether Aspen might have over-charged for Leukeran, Alkeran and Myleran cancer treatments in South Africa.”
Find article here.