The sperm sample of a person undergoing chemotherapy treatment, stored by a hospital for his benefit for future use in case the treatment made him infertile, was property owned by him whose loss or damage entitled him to bring an action for negligence. Moreover, where the circumstances showed there was a bailment of the sperm to the hospital unit storing it, a cause of action for bailment could arise for its loss or damage sounding in damages for psychiatric injury and/or mental distress.
A sample of sperm from a person undergoing chemotherapy, which a hospital stored in case he became infertile after the treatment, was that person’s property and its loss or damage was capable of establishing a claim in negligence. Further, where the hospital’s storage was undertaken gratuitously in the sense that it was a bailee of the sperm, any breach of duty in its safe storage causing loss or damage entitled the owner to recover damages in bailment for psychiatric injury and/or mental distress.
Parents battling to keep their seriously ill baby alive have failed to overturn a ruling allowing him to die. The nine-month-old boy has a rare metabolic disorder and has suffered brain damage and respiratory failure. The couple had appealed against a judge's ruling on Thursday that it was in the boy's best interests to withdraw his "life sustaining treatment". The High Court ruling gives doctors at an unnamed NHS trust powers to turn off the ventilator keeping "baby OT" alive.
Twenty-five years ago it was common practice to bring about the deaths of some children with learning disabilities or physical impairments. This paper considers a small number of landmark cases in the early 1980s that confronted this practice. These cases illustrate a process by which external forces (social, philosophical, political, and professional) moved through the legal system to effect a profound change outside that system – primarily in the (then) largely closed domain of medical conduct/practice. These cases are considered from a socio-legal perspective. In particular, the paper analyses the reasons why they surfaced at that time, the social and political contexts that shaped the judgments, and their legacy.
Debbie Purdy, who wants her husband to accompany her to Switzerland for an assisted suicide without fear of prosecution, took her case to the United Kingdom’s highest court, the House of Lords, for a final appeal this week. Ms Purdy, who has progressive multiple sclerosis, scored an important victory on the first day of the two day hearing, when the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, conceded that article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to respect for private life, applies to cases like hers.
A couple have spoken of their shock after an IVF clinic mix-up led to their last embryo being wrongly implanted into another patient. They were further angered when it emerged the other woman was given the morning-after pill. The couple from Bridgend won their case for damages after the mistake at Cardiff's University Hospital of Wales. Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust apologised "unreservedly" for the error and said it had improved checking procedures. The trust admitted gross failures in care and has also agreed to pay an undisclosed settlement to the couple.
A trainee teacher with primary refractory Hodgkin’s lymphoma has launched a High Court action against her primary care trust, NHS Surrey, which has refused to pay for her treatment with an unlicensed drug. Philippa Bigham, aged 28, from Frimley, Surrey, has been given a prognosis of two years’ survival without a bone marrow transplantation. But her medical team at the Royal Free Hospital in London want her to have treatment with radiolabelled basiliximab, a monoclonal antibody conjugated with radioactive iodine and also known as CHT-25, before she has the transplantation. The primary care trust has refused to pay for the drug, which costs £3000 ({euro}3500; $4900) for a course of treatment. Basiliximab is licensed in the United Kingdom for use in renal transplant rejection but the radiolabelled version is not yet licensed.
Politically strident debates surrounding end-of-life decisionmaking have surfaced once again, this time across the Atlantic in Italy. Eluana Englaro died early this year after a prolonged court fight, causing the international press to compare her case to that of Theresa Marie Schiavo, who passed away in 2005 in Florida after nearly sparking constitutional crises on both state and federal levels. In many respects, the facts of Ms. Englaro’s case are similar to Schiavo, but a close analysis of Englaro leads to the surprising conclusion that the Italian Court of Cassazione in that case actually enunciated a broader, stronger right to make end-of-life decisions than has the United States Supreme Court thus far in America.
A father is fighting a hospital's attempt to withdraw support keeping his baby son alive. The one-year-old, known as Baby RB for legal reasons, was born with a rare, genetic muscle condition that makes it hard for him to breathe independently. His parents are going to the High Court - the mother is reportedly supporting the hospital's bid. The father's lawyers argue that the boy's brain is unaffected, meaning he can see, hear, interact and play. Despite having to remain in hospital and being dependent on a ventilator to breathe, he enjoys having stories read to him and listening to music, they say. The lawyers are submitting video footage to the court, which they say shows him playing with his toys. But the hospital says that Baby RB's quality of life is so low that it would not be in his best interests to try to save him. Baby RB was born with congenital myasthenic syndrome and has been in hospital since birth.
A father whose son was born with a rare neuromuscular condition will go to the high court tomorrow in an attempt to stop a hospital withdrawing the support that keeps the child alive. Doctors treating the one-year-old say the boy's quality of life is so poor that it would not be in his best interests to save him. They are reportedly being supported in their action by the baby's mother, who is separated from his father. The child, known for legal reasons as Baby RB, was born with congenital myasthenic syndrome (CMS), a muscle condition that severely limits movement and the ability to breathe independently. He has been in hospital since birth. If the hospital succeeds in its application, it will be the first time a British court has gone against the wishes of a parent and ruled that life support can be discontinued or withdrawn from a child who does not have brain damage.
A one-year-old boy at the centre of a "right-to-life" legal dispute would not benefit from an operation to help him breathe, the High Court has been told. The child, known as Baby RB, has a rare, genetic condition that makes it hard for him to breathe independently. But a leading paediatrician, known as Dr F, said he was "not a candidate" for surgery to try to open up his airway. Baby RB's father is fighting a hospital's attempt - backed by the mother - to withdraw his life support.
A doctor has agreed a baby in a "right-to-life" legal row may be able to interact - but any mental development would only make his fate more tragic. The paediatric neurologist told the High Court the severely disabled child, Baby RB, would remain in a "no chance" situation even if he developed further. He questioned the life the boy would lead if he was capable of cognitive function but physically so disabled.
A doctor has said that a baby in a "right-to-life" legal row has the potential to communicate and even operate a wheelchair in years to come. The paediatric neurologist, Professor Fenella Kirkham, told the High Court that Baby RB had the normal intelligence of a one-year-old. She said he was likely to develop language recognition skills and he may be better off at home. The boy's father is fighting an attempt by the hospital to end life support.