In this blog post, Megan Griffiths considers the Court of Appeal’s recent judgment which overturned the High Court’s issue of a declaration and guidance on the ability of minors to consent to puberty-blocking treatment.
The Supreme Court handed down its decision in this case on Friday, discussed by Ted Cunningham in this post. Helen Waller has previously provided a comprehensive summary of the factual and legal background to this case, which is available here.
To get us all up to speed ahead of this Supreme Court judgment, which is due to be handed down on Friday 28 May, Helen Waller has helpfully set out the background to this case, the decisions of the lower courts, and a summary of the law on wrongful birth claims. We will update this blog post in the next few days with the result of the Supreme Court decision and our analysis of it.
In this post, Megan Griffiths looks at the recent case of Brennan and others v (1) City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (2) Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust 1 WLUK 429, a very sad case concerning the decomposition of a woman's body in a hospital mortuary.
In the first post of the second instalment of this two-part series looking at COVID-19 vaccinations, Elizabeth Boulden and Cressida Mawdesley-Thomas consider no-fault compensation under the Vaccine Damage Payment scheme. This article was first published as a News Analysis article on Lexis®PSL.
The Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) has given Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 temporary authorisation under regulation 174 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012, which enables temporary authorisation to be granted in response to situations such as pandemics. In this blog, which is the first of a two-part series, Cressida Mawdesley-Thomas considers when there could be civil liability for an unlicensed vaccine. It also considers the conditions imposed by the MHRA for the granting of the temporary authorisation to Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine.
In this blog post, Megan Griffiths summarises and analyses the High Court’s recent decision in Bell v Tavistock NHS Trust. This judicial review decision looks at informed consent practices for children and young people with gender dysphoria, whether they can achieve Gillick competence for consenting to puberty blocking treatment, and what such consent processes would require in practice. This decision is likely to impact on guidance specific to gender dysphoria, but the findings on the types of information required for informed consent in young people are also likely to be relevant to other areas of clinical practice.
In this blog post, Rachit Buch writes in support of the recent decision made in the case of Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust  EWHC 1415 (QB).
In this article, Ronald Walker QC gives his thoughts on why he considers that the recent appeal case of Paul v The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust  EWHC 1415 was wrongly decided.
In this article, Isaac Hogarth discusses the issue of the standard of care to be applied to redeployed doctors in a Covid-19 setting. He suggests that legislation would be required to lay down any proposed modifications to the standard of care.