The article analyses the series of cases that have evolved following the House of Lords dicta in McFarlane v Tayside Health Board1 and which seek to circumvent the limitations imposed by that decision on recovery for the birth of an “uncovenanted” addition to the family. The majority of relevant actions have relied on the possible distinction of cases involving the birth of a disabled child which McFarlane admits. Claims for compensation for the upkeep of the child in such circumstances have been successful, but the author contends that the two types of action are, in fact, distinct. He concludes that the only true comparator to date is Parkinson v St James and Seacroft University Hospital NHS Trust2 and that the reasoning in this case may provide an opening for the House of Lords to reconsider its position.
EXCISION OF THE LACRYMAL GLAND IN CASES OF EPIPHORA IN WHICH SEVERE NERVOUS SHOCK ATTENDS ITS TREATNENT BY DILATATION.
