The European Court has upheld the long-standing principle that parties to a dispute should be able to choose their lawyers without having to go through a tender process (or use a framework).
Following a recent investigation, North Bristol NHS Trust have concluded that around 40% of patients who underwent innovative mesh operations to resolve bowel problems should have been offered alternative forms of treatment first.
A decision by the Supreme Court in 2015 held that patients must be advised of the material* risks of treatment they are undergoing. It is therefore important that patients are advised of treatment options which are appropriate for them, including alternatives and the option not to undergo any treatment at all. Patients should also be advised of the potential benefits and risks to them for each of the options. For some patients it may be the case that, for them, the short-term benefits of undergoing invasive treatment outweigh the negatives of not receiving treatment. However, unless their doctor has had a full and frank discussion with them it is impossible for them to make such a decision and to provide informed consent.
The importance of ensuring that you are aware of the treatment options available to you, and of the relevant benefits and risks of these, is a duty all healthcare practitioners owe to their patients. Cases, even historic ones such as at North Bristol NHS Trust, only serve to emphasise that some healthcare practitioners continue to adopt a ‘my way or the highway’ approach to treatment, instead of considering the individual needs of their patients. Many patients will still have chosen the same type of treatment even if they had been fully informed, but some would not. For the vast majority of individuals this does not result in any long-term poor outcomes, but for some patients, like those at North Bristol, they are left debilitated or in pain.
At Anthony Collins Solicitors, we have acted for clients who have suffered poor outcomes as a result of failures by healthcare practitioners to advise appropriately and enable our clients to reach informed decisions about their healthcare. If you, or someone you know, would like to know more about the services we provide, please contact Christopher Frankling. We are happy to talk to you on an initial free, no-obligation basis.
*The test of materiality is whether, in the circumstances, a reasonable person in the patient's position would be likely to attach significance to the risk, or the doctor is, or should, reasonably be aware that the particular patient would be likely to attach significance to it. The law therefore recognises that a risk which is ‘material’ or significant to one person may not necessarily be the same to another, and therefore healthcare practitioners should take into account their patient’s background, any concerns expressed and how substantial the wrong decision may be for the individual.
On 8 July, news broke of the staggering fine of more than £183m the ICO intended to levy against British Airways as a result of a hack that took place in 2018, compromising 500,000 customers' data.
The Government has been refused permission to appeal a decision ruling that transitional arrangements in public sector pension schemes are discriminatory.
The Lifeline Project was a well-regarded charity. Failure to carry out the targets within the contracts led the charity into insolvency and resulted in a personal, 7-year disqualification order.
Many local authorities have assessed that a trading subsidiary or trading structure could be beneficial as part of generating income or the service delivery matrix.
On 23 July, trainees from Anthony Collins Solicitors will host an ‘experience day’, which will involve various activities and presentations, with lawyers and non-lawyers from across the firm.
The Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) has launched a new scheme specifically for charities and not-for-profit organisations who want to advise EU citizens on UK settlement.
In the second part of our series on contract management pitfalls, we look at the risks and opportunities presented by payment mechanisms in construction contracts.
The Government has resurrected its plans to cap the termination payments for exiting employees in the public sector.
Under most construction contracts, the contractor takes on the ground conditions risk. However, a recent case has demonstrated that the risk can fall on the employer.
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.