Chicken Drumstick, Pork Pie, Glass Of...
News1 min ago
Medical Law
7 Answers
Denise Anderson is 45 years old. She has been diagnosed with very high blood pressure which has been caused by her excessive smoking and drinking for over 20 years and also as a result of her obesity. This has resulted in her now having chronic kidney disease, for which there is no cure, and she was told by her consultant that within one year she will suffer from total kidney failure because her kidneys will stop working and she will then need artificial kidney treatment, known as dialysis, or a kidney transplant. She is also told that with either of those treatments she will only have a 45% chance of living for more than 10 years.
Her sister Fiona decides to pay for Denise to undergo a kidney transplant operation at the privately run Wellington Road Health Centre in St John's Wood London. The consultant, Dr Rashid, discusses the operation with Denise and he plans to use a new immunosuppressant drug, to prevent the rejection of the kidney, called Fitivon, which is not commonly used, but that has been recommended by a leading renal consultant surgeon in a national medical journal.
Fiona asks Dr Rashid before the operation if there will be any problems and he reassuringly replies “don’t worry, my patients don’t have problems”. However he did not inform Denise that the use of this drug carries with it a 2% risk of a blood clot forming in the arteries connected to the new kidney and if this occurs it can result in serious injury. Following the operation blood tests show that blood clots have developed in the arteries and although they can be dissolved using medication Denise is told that now she will now only have 25% chance of living for more than 10 years. Denise tells you that if she had been informed about the risks of the drug she may not have gone ahead with the kidney transplant operation.
Denise asks you to advise her as to whether she could bring a successful claim against the Wellington Road Health Centre. What is your advice?
Her sister Fiona decides to pay for Denise to undergo a kidney transplant operation at the privately run Wellington Road Health Centre in St John's Wood London. The consultant, Dr Rashid, discusses the operation with Denise and he plans to use a new immunosuppressant drug, to prevent the rejection of the kidney, called Fitivon, which is not commonly used, but that has been recommended by a leading renal consultant surgeon in a national medical journal.
Fiona asks Dr Rashid before the operation if there will be any problems and he reassuringly replies “don’t worry, my patients don’t have problems”. However he did not inform Denise that the use of this drug carries with it a 2% risk of a blood clot forming in the arteries connected to the new kidney and if this occurs it can result in serious injury. Following the operation blood tests show that blood clots have developed in the arteries and although they can be dissolved using medication Denise is told that now she will now only have 25% chance of living for more than 10 years. Denise tells you that if she had been informed about the risks of the drug she may not have gone ahead with the kidney transplant operation.
Denise asks you to advise her as to whether she could bring a successful claim against the Wellington Road Health Centre. What is your advice?
Answers
1 to 7 of 7
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Jasonpaul92. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Hi Jason, the previous 6 six have been hot on 'read the book' and very cold on 'and then...... ? '
These are common type problems - Denise is a PP and her chance of survival has been reduced by around half by fitivon [ known perhaps in the trade as un-fitivon-anyone ]
The main heading are - Denise's private contract is with Rashid and she wants for some reason to sue Wellington, so is there a connection through the contract or else does the Wllington owe D a separate duty of care ?
Fiona is paying - so is the contract with F or D ?
Note Fiona has asked the question on problems and not Denise
If he hasnt informed Denise on whom part of the operation is being performed on, and so the series of cases on informed consent are relevant. It is obvious he has a duty of care towards D
Finally D is 'suing on a chance' - the chance of survival being half what it was. If D is in a contract with R, then she can on the contract.
Other wise you need to discuss whether D can sue on a chance in tort and the relevant series of cases here begin with Hotson
You also have to discuss whether Wellington are responsible for R's negligence. It may well not be (Barts Hospital case 1909).
Interesting question. O the rules of the game are that your answer should not be in any part - the chances against W are cr+p, suing R is much more of a go-er so do that because you have not been asked that.
0245 Mon - you must be desperate
O and it is not really medical law - it is more negligence
note I live in the past.
These are common type problems - Denise is a PP and her chance of survival has been reduced by around half by fitivon [ known perhaps in the trade as un-fitivon-anyone ]
The main heading are - Denise's private contract is with Rashid and she wants for some reason to sue Wellington, so is there a connection through the contract or else does the Wllington owe D a separate duty of care ?
Fiona is paying - so is the contract with F or D ?
Note Fiona has asked the question on problems and not Denise
If he hasnt informed Denise on whom part of the operation is being performed on, and so the series of cases on informed consent are relevant. It is obvious he has a duty of care towards D
Finally D is 'suing on a chance' - the chance of survival being half what it was. If D is in a contract with R, then she can on the contract.
Other wise you need to discuss whether D can sue on a chance in tort and the relevant series of cases here begin with Hotson
You also have to discuss whether Wellington are responsible for R's negligence. It may well not be (Barts Hospital case 1909).
Interesting question. O the rules of the game are that your answer should not be in any part - the chances against W are cr+p, suing R is much more of a go-er so do that because you have not been asked that.
0245 Mon - you must be desperate
O and it is not really medical law - it is more negligence
note I live in the past.
1 to 7 of 7
