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.
Tag: Legal reform
COVID 19 Vaccine – questions of safety and civil liability
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.
Informed consent in children and young people
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.
Secondary victim claims Part 2: A differing view on Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust
In this blog post, Rachit Buch writes in support of the recent decision made in the case of Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2020] EWHC 1415 (QB).
Secondary victim claims in clinical negligence actions
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 [2020] EWHC 1415 was wrongly decided.
Standard of care in a clinical setting during the Covid-19 crisis
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.
COVID-19 and Clinical Negligence Claims
Here, Henry Charles, Michael Brace and Lizzie Boulden explain why they consider that COVID-19 related clinical negligence claims arising out of redeployed healthcare professionals are unlikely to succeed on the present law. This should provide considerable comfort to healthcare professionals who are not only bravely risking their lives, but who are also working in unfamiliar roles in the national effort to fight the pandemic.
Who to sue? Doctor held to be an independent contractor in Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13
In this blog post, pupils Cressida Mawdesley-Thomas and Tim Goodwin discuss the recent case of Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13. Whilst this might more appropriately fall under the definition of an employer's liability case, it is worth noting that this case centred on the activities of a doctor, and therefore it provides useful guidance on who might be the correct defendant in a case relating to medical professionals who appear to be acting as "independent contractors".
Public policy shift in the court’s approach to surrogacy arrangements: Whittington Hospital NHS Trust v XX [2020] UKSC 14
Public policy shift in the court’s approach to surrogacy arrangements: Whittington Hospital NHS Trust v XX [2020] UKSC 14
