Gillick, bone marrow and teenagers

The Human Tissue Authority can authorise a bone marrow harvest on a child of any age if a person with parental responsibility consents to the procedure. Older children have the legal capacity to consent to medical procedures under Gillick, but it is unclear if Gillick can be applied to non-therapeutic medical procedures. The relevant donation guidelines state that the High Court shall be consulted in the event of a disagreement, but what is in the best interests of the teenage donor under s.1 of the Children Act 1989? There are no legal authorities on child bone marrow harvests in the United Kingdom. This article considers the best interests of the older saviour sibling and questions whether, for the purposes of welfare, the speculative benefits could outweigh the physical burdens

The secret world of liver transplant candidate assessment

Organ transplantation is a field entangled with ethical complexities. One of the major controversies subject to debate is resource allocation. The UK's organ procurement agency, NHS Blood and Transplant, must ensure that the limited number of human organs are allocated to the most efficient, yet the most deserving, transplant candidates. NHSBT have published numerous organ allocation protocols to this end, but little of known of the transplant candidate assessment process, which not only plays a pivotal role in selecting suitable transplant candidates for the waiting list, but also plays host to some of the most difficult ethical decisions in medicine. This piece will examine the UK liver transplant candidate assessment process in detail, paying particular attention to the composition of transplant teams, the diverse candidate criteria under examination, and the controversial grounds upon which a candidate can be excluded from transplantation. The limited regulations surrounding transplant teams and the opportunities to discriminate against particularly vulnerable candidates—such as alcoholics and illicit drug users—will also be discussed, and it will be asked if a fair assessment process for all liver transplant candidates can be guaranteed by NHSBT when transplant teams are subject to such a wealth of discretion. </jats:p

Being informed: the complexities of knowledge, deception and consent when transmitting HIV

The offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm under s. 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 has been confirmed as the most appropriate ground for convicting a reckless transmission of the HIV virus through sexual intercourse.1 An informed consent from the victim, along with a reasonable belief in that consent from the defendant, will now suffice as a defence to such a charge.2 However, it remains unclear how and when the victim must be informed of the relevant circumstances in order to provide consent to infected intercourse, and it is also undecided whether the defendant himself must divulge his HIV status in order to claim an honest belief in the victim's consent.3 Additionally, the fine line of consensual activity drawn in R v Brown4 appears to have been eroded by recent HIV transmission cases.5 This article outlines the development in relation to s. 20 to include HIV offences; it aims to untangle the recent authorities on knowledge, deception and consent in relation to both victims and perpetrators in reckless HIV transmission cases and suggests a way forward for the law in the shape of a new offence. </jats:p