Medical Negligence

several said that if they were to have an extremely premature baby, they would not

As a nurse it has happened to be an essential need to be conscious of the legal aspects associated with caring and serving people in the health industry today. Unfortunately, only fewer people want to get into the health care field fearing the legal aspects and the predictable law suits. The Tort Law is one of the legal aspects of the law that most nurses is more familiar with. This is the law that involved misconduct and negligence cases, which many nurses take the time to study in depth. This is one of the most universal and well-known laws, something that nurses and doctors must be familiar with, to maintain their care resourcefully.

By comparing the English approach with the Australian approach towards the wrongful conception or pregnancy cases due to medical negligence, this can be distinguished with respect to the case of Cattanach v Melchior. In contrast with the McFarlane case, which only allows the recovery of damages for the disabled child, the Melchior case could allow the damages to be awarded for the costs of fostering a healthy child.

While wrongful birth claims have generally been accepted by the courts, the tort of wrongful life, despite its long history, has not had the same success. In 2006 a majority of the High Court of Australia (HCA) followed the lead of many other jurisdictions and held that ‘wrongful life’ claims were not possible under the common law of Australia. A wrongful life claim is one brought by a disabled child against their mother’s medical practitioner for negligent pre-natal care. The negligence claims arise as a consequence of failing to warn the mother that the child may suffer some form of disability. As a result, the abortion of the child is not carried through. The argument is not that the medical practitioner caused the disabilities, but rather that their negligence resulted in the child being born – meaning that the practitioner is responsible for the child’s very existence. The rejection that this cause of action exists means that plaintiffs such as Alexia Harriton, who suffers from blindness, deafness,

The advanced technology today makes it possible to fetus’s potential conditions when it is born. Not everything is perfect and sometimes we find out that a baby

If this scenario happened in an outpatient clinic or urgent care center and there were physicians who were more dedicated to patient safety a report to child protective services may have been made regarding the child’s injuries. This child deserves to have her rights observed and

Furthermore, as discussed in chapter 3 there is inconsistent application of the legal rules to determine the liability of the medical professional. Therefore, as previously discussed solicitors are usually hesitant to pursue clinical negligence claims by the means of SFA. With SFA being the only means for claimants to afford to pursue clinical negligence claims the removal of civil legal aid for clinical negligence claims has meant that many claimants are unable to access the necessary legal representation and in turn access courts for their civil rights to be determined. Consequently, many claimants are not compensated for medical injuries inflicted due to the negligence of the medical professional, thus the current system is failing to meet its primary aim. More importantly, the practical difficulties in accessing and in turn using the civil justice system for clinical negligence claims has meant that the Scottish Government is failing to meet its obligation under Article 6 and 8 of the

Most of the issues involved with wrongful conception cases have been adjudicated through the state courts from the 1960s to the present. Almost always they have ruled that parents cannot collect damages for the birth of a normal, healthy child, even as the result of medical malpractice through defective sterilization and contraception procedures or failure to carry out correct genetic testing or fully inform parents of the results. Nor have the courts ruled that the birth of a handicapped child is a life unworthy of living, and instead have argued for judicial restraint in making such legal and moral determinations. Even in the case of the severely handicapped, such as children with Down syndrome, American courts have not ruled that nonexistence would be preferable to living a limited life. On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that parents can collect personal injury damages as the result the birth of an impaired or unplanned child, at least in the recovery of medical costs if not all the expenses of rearing the child to adulthood. State courts also allow the recovery of damages for medical expenses, training and treatment for handicapped children born as the result of failed abortion, contraception or sterilization. Due to the Roe v. Wade case of 1973, parents have the right to determine whether a child will be born or not, although recent efforts in

There are four different types of wrongful laws dealing with child birth and they are wrong life, wrong birth, wrongful pregnancy and wrongful breech. Wrongful life means that the child can sue its parents or anybody that is raising them for being born. Wrongful life and wrongful birth is similar but different because wrongful birth is the parents suing the doctor or hospital for the disabled of their child. Wrongful pregnancy is the parent becoming pregnant or had a child without planning or wanting it, this happens when the pregnancy is not detected or failed procedures and the child is damaging the mother. Wrongful breech is a warranty that the mother or child can sue the doctor because of a bad embryo was used during an in vitro

Of the 31 women who reported reasons for late or no prenatal care, 17 (55%) cited late confirmation of pregnancy and 7 (23%) cited lack of medical insurance. Among those who cited lack of medical insurance, only 2 (<1%) cited that they didn’t believe they qualified. No women cited traditional barriers (transportation, childcare or cost) and only 1 cited clinic scheduling as a reason for the delay.

The cases of Baker and Landon and the earlier case of Aldridge and keaton both have considered the parenting rights when i a child is conceived as a result of IVF and when the applicant is not biologically related to the child. In these cases, the court found that for a person to be successfully identified as the parent of the child conceived through IVF, the non-biological person must first establish themselves into one of the categories under section 60H of the Family Law Act. When a child is born to a women as a result of an artificial contraception procedure while the women was (1) married to, or a de-facto partner of, an other intended partner and (2) whether there was consent, then for the purpose of

In vitro fertilisation (IVF) marks a great step forward in medical technology, and Australia is a leader in the field. IVF is now a popular procedure for couples who are infertile or are having trouble conceiving. However, it raises ethical, moral and legal issues including the rights of an individual, property rights, the definition of human life, scientific experimentation versus a potential human life, religion, costs, and community, medical and taxpayer’s rights.

For most families, the birth of a new child into the family is a very happy and exciting time. It is a time of immeasurable joy, as a couple invites a new member into their family. Unfortunately, due the negligence of those who have been entrusted with the responsibility of protecting the safety of the mother and the infant, some children experience significant injury during the delivery process. The negligent actions of physicians and/or the medical staff can lead to immensely devastating consequences for the family. At The Doan Law Firm, we believe that it is extremely important to pursue compensation on behalf of injured victims and their families to help cover the cost of recovery and the long-term expenses associated with the injuries. The compensation that we pursue will secure the resources that will allow the family to provide the care and recovery that will help them lead fulfilling lives as they cope with the consequences of the injury sustained by their child during birth.

Hello everyone! Unfortunately, this is the last post I will be making regarding medical school and the field in general, but I want to leave an impression on the prospective outlook of being any type of professional in the medical field, or obstacles that are certainly headed your way. Addressing Ashley Sims’ question on the last post, a found a site that described a birth injury case: http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/10/articles/attorney/medical-malpractice-1/the-truth-about-those-blockbuster-birth-injury-obstetrical-malpractice-jury-verdicts/

In Gregg v Scott, Mr. Malcolm Gregg (‘the claimant’), the House of Lords examined the law of negligence in the area of personal injury. In order for the claimant to have a successful claim in court, the onus to shifts to the claimant to demonstrate that a duty of care owed by the doctor, there was a breach of that duty, an injury was sustained, and the negligence on behalf of the doctor Dr. Andrew Scott (‘defendant’) was a cause of the ‘injury’. If these elements are not satisfied, the claimant may lose its entitlement to full compensation.