scholarly journals Professional duties are now considered legal duties of care within genomic medicine

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (10) ◽  
pp. 1301-1304
Author(s):  
Middleton Anna ◽  
Patch Christine ◽  
Roberts Jonathan ◽  
Milne Richard ◽  
Costa Alessia ◽  
...  

Abstract The legal duty to protect patient confidentiality is common knowledge amongst healthcare professionals. However, what may not be widely known, is that this duty is not always absolute. In the United Kingdom, both the General Medical Council governing the practice of all doctors, as well as many other professional codes of practice recognise that, under certain circumstances, it may be appropriate to break confidentiality. This arises when there is a wider duty to protect the health of others, and when the risk of non-disclosure outweighs the potential harm from breaking confidentiality. We discuss this situation specifically in relation to genomic medicine where relatives in a family may have differing views on the sharing of familial genetic information. Overruling a patient’s wishes is predicated on balancing the duty of care towards the patient versus protecting their relative from serious harm. We discuss the practice implications of a pivotal legal case that concluded recently in the High Court of Justice in England and Wales, ABC v St Georges Healthcare NHS Trust & Ors. Professional guidance is already clear that genetic healthcare professionals must undertake a balancing exercise to weigh up contradictory duties of care. However, the judge has provided a new legal weighting to these professional duties: ‘The scope of the duty extends not only to conducting the necessary balancing exercise but also to acting in accordance with its outcome’ [1: 189]. In the context of genomic medicine, this has important consequences for clinical practice.

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 593-608 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abigail Tazzyman ◽  
Marie Bryce ◽  
Jane Ferguson ◽  
Kieran Walshe ◽  
Alan Boyd ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Gavaghan

AbstractThe recent case of David Bradley, who shot and killed four members of his family after telling his doctor he 'wanted to kill someone', has raised the question of whether a healthcare professional could ever be held liable for failing to take steps to constrain a potentially dangerous patient. Until recently, it was considered that the United Kingdom courts would be reluctant to impose a duty to protect third parties. However, the European Court of Human Rights' decision in Osman v UK — while not directly concerning healthcare professionals — has opened the door for just such a duty. When this duty will arise, and how it can be discharged, remain challenging questions. Furthermore, healthcare professionals face the unenviable task of balancing competing duties, in which the rights — and safety — of their patients must also be borne in mind.


2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 149-153
Author(s):  
Charlotte Cliffe

The General Medical Council clearly states that a doctor must offer help when off-duty, if an emergency arises. However, despite an English doctor’s professional duty to offer their assistance, this duty does not exist as a legal duty. Therefore, a doctor would not be held negligent for failing to offer help, outside of their clinical setting. This article will critically analyse the reasons behind this lack of legal duty, comparing the law to other jurisdictions.


2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Andrew Graeme Rowland ◽  
Keerthi Mohan

NHS organisations must be assured that appropriate protections and support are in place for their employees, especially when incidents occur or concerns arise. These assurances are an essential part of fostering a just and inclusive culture under an overarching banner of compassionate leadership, while also ensuring that any concerns are properly investigated. In mid-2019, the General Medical Council published their Hamilton review into Gross Negligence Manslaughter. As a result, NHS Improvement wrote to NHS trusts about managing local investigation processes for disciplinary investigations of all types. Employers and educators of healthcare professionals have a responsibility to consider how they will put these recommendations and requirements into practice, yet there is currently no clear implementation guidance. The authors make implementation recommendations that should be considered by NHS organisations and Health Education England as part of their compassionate leadership and just culture processes.


2018 ◽  
Vol 100-B (9) ◽  
pp. 1253-1259 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Seewoonarain ◽  
A. A. Johnson ◽  
M. Barrett

Aims Informed patient consent is a legal prerequisite endorsed by multiple regulatory institutions including the Royal College of Surgeons and the General Medical Council. It is also recommended that the provision of written information is available and may take the form of a Patient Information Leaflet (PIL) with multiple PILs available from leading orthopaedic institutions. PILs may empower the patient, improve compliance, and improve the patient experience. The national reading age in the United Kingdom is less than 12 years and therefore PILs should be written at a readability level not exceeding 12 years old. We aim to assess the readability of PILs currently provided by United Kingdom orthopaedic institutions. Patients and Methods The readability of PILs on 58 common conditions provided by seven leading orthopaedic associations in January 2017, including the British Orthopaedic Association, British Hip Society, and the British Association of Spinal Surgeons, was assessed. All text in each PIL was analyzed using readability scores including the Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) test. Results The mean FKGL was 10.4 (6.7 to 17.0), indicating a mean reading age of 15 years. The mean SMOG score was 12.8 (9.7 to 17.9) indicating a mean reading age of 17 years. Conclusion Orthopaedic-related PILs do not comply with the recommended reading age, with some requiring graduate-level reading ability. Patients do not have access to appropriate orthopaedic-related PILs. Current publicly available PILs require further review to promote patient education and informed consent. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1253–9.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document