2,755 research outputs found

    Psychiatric illness and clinical negligence:When can “secondary victims” successfully claim for damages? Recent developments from the United Kingdom

    Get PDF
    On January 11, 2024, the United Kingdom (U.K.) Supreme Court rendered its judgment in Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, restricting the circumstances in which “secondary victims” can successfully claim for damages in clinical negligence cases. This ruling has provided welcome clarity regarding the scope of negligently caused “pure” psychiatric illness claims, but the judgment may well prove controversial. In this article, I trace the facts and opinion from the majority and also discuss an important dissenting opinion. I then reflect on what the ruling means for psychiatric illness claims by secondary victims, and more broadly on the implications for clinical negligence law. I suggest that while much-needed clarity has been injected in this area of the law, it is difficult, reading the majority of the Supreme Court’s emphasis on the restricted scope of a medical practitioner’s duty, to envision a scenario in which secondary victim could ever succeed in a clinical negligence context

    Back to Blood: The Sociopolitics and Law of Compulsory DNA Testing of Refugees

    Get PDF
    Since October 2012, certain family members of refugees seeking reunification through the United States Refugee Admissions Priority Three program must undergo DNA testing to prove they are genetically related. The putative purposes of the policy include fraud prevention, enhanced national security, and greater efficiency in refugee claims processing. Upon close inspection, however, the new policy generates significant sociopolitical and legal concerns. The notion of what constitutes a family is significantly narrowed. Required DNA testing may violate domestic laws and international human rights instruments regarding voluntary informed consent, privacy, and anti-discrimination. Traditional legal solutions insufficiently remedy these concerns and cannot prevent the collective march towards an intractable risk society that views the “Other” as a potential fraud. Alternative strategies to mitigate the impact of the new policy are recommended. Such strategies can allow for a more nuanced understanding of family and a firmer understanding of the inherent but also uncertain risks of DNA technology in the immigration and refugee context
    • 

    corecore