Thread: Woman who inherited fatal illness to sue doctors in groundbreaking case

Originally Posted by can123

Absolute bollocks ! There is nothing wrong with either the current law

You started out in this discussion with the absolute that under no circumstances should patient confidentiality be breached. I see you're not quite so adamant for the absolute as we've realised that there are circumstances, enshrined in law, that allow breaches. You seem to be saying in a convoluted way that even though there are exceptions to privacy laws, no more exceptions should be enshrined in law, despite that mankind's advancing knowledge of things such as genetics does make some laws, or parts of them, redundant or obsolete.

^
Yes, I am saying precisely that. No changes until Parliament says otherwise. Any scientific advances should be considered by Parliament at a future date if it so desires. We do not change the law because a journalist writes a story and people make comments about that story without understanding the current legislation and the common law.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Please inform us.
And what is the law. I didn't see your response to some of my points.
Yes and that is what is central here: Designing the law to include genetic information as well as diseases. At one point in time ebola was not notifiable, but with the stroke of a pen, after some consideration, it was made so. The same could be done for genetic diseases.
Consider ramifications. Stroke that pen across the paper.

The ebola case is a matter of over riding public heath concerns. This case is not, and personally, as i said, the guilty partner was the father, not the doctor.

Originally Posted by nidhogg

The ebola case is a matter of over riding public heath concerns. This case is not, and personally, as i said, the guilty partner was the father, not the doctor.

But he wasn't guilty, because there was no legal duty for him to tell her. If he had AIDS, because of recent legislation, he would have a legal duty to inform any sexual partner.

The point is that it has raised a legal question that requires consideration. E.g. if he has passed on genes with such a consequence, should HE be legally required to inform her?

Originally Posted by can123

^
Yes, I am saying precisely that. No changes until Parliament says otherwise. Any scientific advances should be considered by Parliament at a future date if it so desires. We do not change the law because a journalist writes a story and people make comments about that story without understanding the current legislation and the common law.

I think I see your stance, and if I'm right about that, I don't disagree with you.
It's not journalists that will influence the outcome, it's the considerations in the court. And maybe the court of public opinion too, so yeah maybe journalists will have a part in it.

What we've established so far is that there is no absolute mandate that doctors should never divulge. There is allowance made, in law, for breaches of patient confidentiality in special circumstances. What this boils down to is a question of extending those special circumstances... by the stroke of a pen, whether in Parliament of in a judge's notes.
My opinion is that that extension should be made, with due qualifications. It would indeed be ridiculous for doctors to be compelled to warn the children of their patients that there may be a chance, due to genetics, that they'll go bald in their 50's.
And that is what this discussion is about.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The point is that it has raised a legal question that requires consideration. E.g. if he has passed on genes with such a consequence, should HE be legally required to inform her?

Slightly tangential since it's the doctor's being sued in this case, but yes, I think both doctor and patient have a duty and that it should be legislated, just as laws have been made to cover AIDs aresholes that deliberately infect people and ebola is notifiable.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

But he wasn't guilty, because there was no legal duty for him to tell her. If he had AIDS, because of recent legislation, he would have a legal duty to inform any sexual partner.

The point is that it has raised a legal question that requires consideration. E.g. if he has passed on genes with such a consequence, should HE be legally required to inform her?

My bad. In the earlier post i think i qualified it as a moral responsibility, rather than a legal one.

Personally again, i am somewhat loathe to deliver further powers to medics in these issues.

Originally Posted by nidhogg

My bad. In the earlier post i think i qualified it as a moral responsibility, rather than a legal one.

Personally again, i am somewhat loathe to deliver further powers to medics in these issues.

I'm not sure they want them.

The woman will not succeed in her action and I see no reason for a change in the present law. She had absolute control of her life under the law and has to take responsibility for her actions. She has to face up to reality and not seek money for her own decisions which have proved to be the wrong ones. We must live our lives without seeking to look for others to blame when it falls short of expectations.

Originally Posted by nidhogg

Personally again, i am somewhat loathe to deliver further powers to medics in these issues.

Yes, me too. And yet something should be done. That's why I'm advocating that medics have an avenue whereby the decision is out of their hands; a special ethics panel. But further, and on the other side of the coin, those same medics should be legally obligated to turn to the panel.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Yes, me too. And yet something should be done. That's why I'm advocating that medics have an avenue whereby the decision is out of their hands; a special ethics panel. But further, and on the other side of the coin, those same medics should be legally obligated to turn to the panel.

There is no need for anything to be done. Accept life for what it is and do not look for "panels" to act as a crutch for society. We have too many panels in this country mostly comprised of clowns. I know, I have dealt with many. We need less regulation in our lives not more of it.

Originally Posted by can123

There is no need for anything to be done. Accept life for what it is and do not look for "panels" to act as a crutch for society. We have too many panels in this country mostly comprised of clowns. I know, I have dealt with many. We need less regulation in our lives not more of it.

So, rescind the legislation that requires doctors to alert authorities of notifiabe diseases? Do away with the list of notifiable diseases? I can see no other reasonable conclusion to your line of thought; Accept life (or death) as it comes, no matter that it may have been prevented.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

So, rescind the legislation that requires doctors to alert authorities of notifiabe diseases? Do away with the list of notifiable diseases? I can see no other reasonable conclusion to your line of thought; Accept life (or death) as it comes, no matter that it may have been prevented.

There are two other possible conclusions:

a) He's trolling (very badly)
b) No-one told his parents he'd be born with special needs.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

There are two other possible conclusions:

There's a third, and I have really been considering it; He's got a genetic disorder (none of our business) and hates the thought he'll have to divulge it, or his MD will have to. I can see no other reason why anyone would want to prevent information that could save other people should not be divulged, all for the sake of patient confidentiality.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

So, rescind the legislation that requires doctors to alert authorities of notifiabe diseases? Do away with the list of notifiable diseases? I can see no other reasonable conclusion to your line of thought; Accept life (or death) as it comes, no matter that it may have been prevented.

You are a silly person. My intellect is wasted discussing anything with you. Next nutcase, please.

Originally Posted by can123

You are a silly person. My intellect is wasted discussing anything with you. Next nutcase, please.

So a) then.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

has a 50% chance of having it. The woman – who cannot be named for legal reasons – says she would have had an abortion had she known

hmm... being aborted tends to be 100% fatal

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

So a) then.

Or b). Both fit.

Originally Posted by bowie

hmm... being aborted tends to be 100% fatal

Yes. If you could choose a lifetime of agony and hardship or no lifetime at all, which would you choose, for yourself and for an upcoming child? Regardless of your own choice, understand others may choose differently.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

So a) then.

No, I believe that he is just stupid. He can't help it, of course, and it may be down to his genes.

Originally Posted by bowie

hmm... being aborted tends to be 100% fatal

Yeah.... not a discussion on abortion.

^^. Unless I'm mistaken, that post takes the cake for ignorance and sheer lack of any ability to comprehend and follow a dialogue.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

^^. Unless I'm mistaken, that post takes the cake for ignorance and sheer lack of any ability to comprehend and follow a dialogue.

Can123 was probably talking about himself in the third person. He has history on this forum of doing precisely that.

Originally Posted by Neverna

Can123 was probably talking about himself in the third person. He has history on this forum of doing precisely that.

Oh really? How very odd.
Then I was mistaken. It happens. Apologies to Can123 for my accusations of ignorance and uncomprehending dumbness wrt his post.