Medical negligence litigation. Medical assessment of claims.

AbstractFOXP1 syndrome is a neurodevelopmental disorder caused by mutations or deletions that disrupt the forkhead box protein 1 (FOXP1) gene, which encodes a transcription factor important for the early development of many organ systems, including the brain. Numerous clinical studies have elucidated the role of FOXP1 in neurodevelopment and have characterized a phenotype. FOXP1 syndrome is associated with intellectual disability, language deficits, autism spectrum disorder, hypotonia, and congenital anomalies, including mild dysmorphic features, and brain, cardiac, and urogenital abnormalities. Here, we present a review of human studies summarizing the clinical features of individuals with FOXP1 syndrome and enlist a multidisciplinary group of clinicians (pediatrics, genetics, psychiatry, neurology, cardiology, endocrinology, nephrology, and psychology) to provide recommendations for the assessment of FOXP1 syndrome.

Download Full-text

Diminished autonomy and justice in liver transplantation – The price of scarcity?

Clinical Ethics ◽

10.1177/14777509211016286 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 147775092110162

Author(s):

Philip Berry ◽

Sreelakshmi Kotha

Keyword(s):

Patient Autonomy ◽

Patient Involvement ◽

Organ Allocation ◽

Self Determination ◽

Wait List ◽

Medical Assessment ◽

Patient Factors ◽

Future Directions ◽

Allocation Criteria ◽

Qualitative Nature

Patient autonomy and distributive justice are fundamental ethical principles that may be at risk in liver transplant units where decisions are dictated by the need to maximise the utility of scarce donor organs. The processes of patient selection, organ allocation and prioritisation on the wait list have evolved in a constrained environment, leading to high levels of complexity and low transparency. Regarding paternalism, opaque listing and allocation criteria, patient factors such as passivity, guilt, chronic illness and sub-clinical encephalopathy are cited as factors that may inhibit patient engagement. Regarding justice, established regional, gender and race based inequities are described. The paradox whereby hepatologists both advocate for individual patients and discharge their duty of stewardship to apportion organs according to larger utilitarian principles is explored. Competing subjective factors such as physicians’ perception of moral responsibility, the qualitative nature of expert medical assessment and institutional or personal loyalty to re-transplantation candidates are described. Realistic limits of self-determination and justice are discussed, and possible future directions in terms of patient involvement proposed.

Download Full-text