Excessive risk disclosure: the effects of the law on medical practice

This article examines the debate surrounding the challenging concept of informed consent. It argues whilst the English courts have effectively excluded the use of the tort of battery as an appropriate mechanism for protecting a patient's right to self-determination, they have left the law in a state of flux due to the uncertainties associated with categorising similar claims within negligence where the onus is on risk disclosure. This confusion may stem firstly from the fact that medical practitioners are unsure exactly which risks to disclose, and secondly, from the way in which both doctors and patients perceive the consent process. The paper suggests this disorder may be having a detrimental effect on medical practice as medical practitioners are taking it upon themselves to disclose excessive information, which patient's may not want or need. A suggestion is also made that in these situations, in order that the law truly respects self-determination, consideration must be given to the patient's desire to waive their right to informed consent.     

Drug access,patents and global health: 'Chaffed and waxed sufficient'

In July 2000 the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights issued a General Comment on the Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health. At paragraph 10 the Committee makes the following admission: 'Since the adoption of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1966 the world health situation has changed dramatically and the notion of health has undergone substantial changes and widened in scope. More determinants are being taken into consideration, such as resource distribution and gender differences. A wider definition of health also takes into account such socially related concerns as violence and armed conflict. Moreover, formerly unknown diseases, such as HIV and AIDS, and others that have become more widespread, such as cancer, as well as the rapid growth of the world population, have created new obstacles for the realisation of the right to health which need to be taken into account when interpreting article 12.'¹ The need to understand why and how 'the notion of health has undergone substantial changes and widened in scope', the forces that are contributing to this redefinition, and the implications for governments, multinational pharmaceutical companies and ordinary people is the subject of this article. In particular global health is assessed according to the extent of global access to life improving-medicines, and the surmountable barriers that prevent this.     

LESSENING THE STING OF ASFA: THE REHABILITATION‐RELAPSE DILEMMA BROUGHT ABOUT BY DRUG ADDICTION AND TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS

Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA) as a response to children waiting in foster homes for years without permanent placement. In addressing the problem of permanency, however, Congress set a strict limit on how long a child could be in foster care (15 out of the most recent 22 months) before a state must either commence a proceeding to terminate parental rights or else lose valuable federal funding. Due to health care funding schemes and quality of treatment, this requirement, in particular, negatively impacts parents currently in drug rehabilitation whose parental rights may be permanently terminated before a realistic chance to recover is permitted. Although ASFA requires that states make “reasonable efforts” to keep families united, it does not define “reasonable efforts,” leaving parental rights and family unity subject to a chaotic interpretation of this requirement from state to state. “Reasonable efforts” should be interpreted to take into account current drug addiction and recovery research and drug court programs should be used to facilitate this goal. Research has shown that focusing on adequate treatment saves states money and improves the lives of children and their families, reducing the need for reliance on termination of parental rights.     

The ‘right to be forgotten’ or the ‘principle that has been remembered’

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled on questions referred by a Spanish court relating to interpretation of the Data Protection Directive and its application to search engine activities. In a controversial judgment, the CJEU found that search engines are data controllers in respect of their search results; that European data protection law applies to their processing of the data of EU citizens, even where they process the relevant data outside the EU; and that a ‘right to be forgotten’ online applies to outdated and irrelevant data in search results unless there is a public interest in the data remaining available and even where the search results link to lawfully published content.