非患者出局索赔:ABC诉伦敦西南部圣乔治医疗保健NHS信托基金和圣乔治精神健康NHS信托基金和苏塞克斯合作伙伴NHS基金会信托基金(高等法院,2015年5月19日- Nicol J)

J. Mead
{"title":"非患者出局索赔:ABC诉伦敦西南部圣乔治医疗保健NHS信托基金和圣乔治精神健康NHS信托基金和苏塞克斯合作伙伴NHS基金会信托基金(高等法院,2015年5月19日- Nicol J)","authors":"J. Mead","doi":"10.1177/1356262215591765","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The trusts applied to strike out this claim on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect of the claimant establishing that it would be fair, just or reasonable to impose a duty of care in the circumstances. The judge made an anonymity order in relation to the claimant, her father and daughter but not in respect of the trusts involved. In 2007, the claimant’s father (F) shot and killed the claimant’s mother. He was convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and detained at a clinic run by the second defendant. In 2009, it was suspected that he was suffering from Huntington’s disease and he was referred to St George’s Hospital, the responsibility of the first defendant. He had also been seen by a social worker employed by the third defendant. In November 2009, it was confirmed that F did indeed have Huntington’s disease. This disease is genetic in origin and, if a parent has it, there is a 50% chance that his or her child will do so too. Various health professionals therefore sought F’s consent to disclose the diagnosis to his daughter, the claimant, who was pregnant at the time. F refused permission. In January 2013, the claimant herself was diagnosed with the same condition but it was too early to tell whether her daughter (C) also had the disease.","PeriodicalId":89664,"journal":{"name":"Clinical risk","volume":"21 1","pages":"53 - 54"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1356262215591765","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Claim from non-patient struck out: ABC v St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust, South West London and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust and Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (High Court, 19 May 2015 – Nicol J)\",\"authors\":\"J. Mead\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1356262215591765\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The trusts applied to strike out this claim on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect of the claimant establishing that it would be fair, just or reasonable to impose a duty of care in the circumstances. The judge made an anonymity order in relation to the claimant, her father and daughter but not in respect of the trusts involved. In 2007, the claimant’s father (F) shot and killed the claimant’s mother. He was convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and detained at a clinic run by the second defendant. In 2009, it was suspected that he was suffering from Huntington’s disease and he was referred to St George’s Hospital, the responsibility of the first defendant. He had also been seen by a social worker employed by the third defendant. In November 2009, it was confirmed that F did indeed have Huntington’s disease. This disease is genetic in origin and, if a parent has it, there is a 50% chance that his or her child will do so too. Various health professionals therefore sought F’s consent to disclose the diagnosis to his daughter, the claimant, who was pregnant at the time. F refused permission. In January 2013, the claimant herself was diagnosed with the same condition but it was too early to tell whether her daughter (C) also had the disease.\",\"PeriodicalId\":89664,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical risk\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"53 - 54\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1356262215591765\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical risk\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1356262215591765\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical risk","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1356262215591765","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

信托申请取消这一索赔,理由是索赔人没有合理的前景确定在这种情况下施加注意义务是公平、公正或合理的。法官就申索人及其父亲及女儿作出匿名令,但不涉及所涉及的信托。2007年,索赔人的父亲(F)枪杀了索赔人的母亲。他被判过失杀人罪,理由是责任减轻,并被拘留在第二被告经营的诊所。2009年,人们怀疑他患有亨廷顿舞蹈病,他被转介到圣乔治医院,这是第一被告的责任。他亦曾被第三被告雇用的一名社工见过。2009年11月,确诊F确实患有亨廷顿舞蹈症。这种疾病是遗传性的,如果父母一方患有此病,他或她的孩子也有50%的几率患有此病。因此,多名保健专业人员征求F的同意,将诊断结果透露给当时怀孕的他的女儿,即索赔人。F拒绝许可。2013年1月,索赔人自己被诊断出患有同样的疾病,但现在判断她的女儿(C)是否也患有这种疾病还为时过早。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Claim from non-patient struck out: ABC v St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust, South West London and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust and Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (High Court, 19 May 2015 – Nicol J)
The trusts applied to strike out this claim on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect of the claimant establishing that it would be fair, just or reasonable to impose a duty of care in the circumstances. The judge made an anonymity order in relation to the claimant, her father and daughter but not in respect of the trusts involved. In 2007, the claimant’s father (F) shot and killed the claimant’s mother. He was convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and detained at a clinic run by the second defendant. In 2009, it was suspected that he was suffering from Huntington’s disease and he was referred to St George’s Hospital, the responsibility of the first defendant. He had also been seen by a social worker employed by the third defendant. In November 2009, it was confirmed that F did indeed have Huntington’s disease. This disease is genetic in origin and, if a parent has it, there is a 50% chance that his or her child will do so too. Various health professionals therefore sought F’s consent to disclose the diagnosis to his daughter, the claimant, who was pregnant at the time. F refused permission. In January 2013, the claimant herself was diagnosed with the same condition but it was too early to tell whether her daughter (C) also had the disease.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信