Patterns of hematopoietic chimerism following bone marrow transplantation for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia from volunteer unrelated donors

Hematopoietic chimerism was analyzed in serial bone marrow samples taken from 28 children following T-cell depleted unrelated donor bone marrow transplants (UD BMT) for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Chimeric status was determined by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of simple tandem repeat (STR) sequences (maximal sensitivity, 0.1%). At least two serial samples were examined in 23 patients. Of these, two had evidence of complete donor engraftment at all times and eight showed stable low level mixed chimerism (MC) (<1% recipient hematopoiesis). All 10 of these patients remain in remission with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. By contrast, 13 patients demonstrated a progressive return of recipient hematopoiesis. Five of these relapsed (4 to 9 months post BMT), one died of cytomegalovirus pneumonitis and seven remain in remission with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. Five children were excluded from serial analysis as two serial samples were not collected before either relapse (3) or graft rejection (2). We conclude that as with sibling transplants, ex vivo T depleted UD BMT in children with ALL is associated with a high incidence of MC. Stable donor engraftment and low level MC always correlated with continued remission. However, detection of a progressive return of recipient cells did not universally correlate with relapse, but highlighted those patients at greatest risk. Serial chimerism analysis by PCR of STRs provides a rapid and simple screening technique for the detection of relapse and the identification of patients with progressive MC who might benefit from detailed molecular analysis for minimal residual disease following matched volunteer UD BMT for childhood ALL.

Legal liability of coaches: a UK perspective

Attracting more coaches is fundamental to achievement of the European dimension in sport and the further promotion of sport in the European Union. Given the emerging relationship between the law and sports coaching, recruitment of such volunteers may prove problematic. Accordingly, this article critically considers the legal liability of sports coaches. To inform this debate, the issue of negligent coaching is critically scrutinised from a UK perspective, uncovering a number of distinct legal vulnerabilities facing volunteer coaches. This includes the inherent limitations of ‘objective reasonableness’ when defining the standard of care required in the particular circumstances. More specifically, fuller analysis of the justification of customary practice, and the legal doctrine of in loco parentis, reveals important ramifications for all organisations providing training and support for coaches. In short, it is argued that proactively safeguarding coaches from professional liability should be a priority for national governing bodies, and, following the recently published EU Work Plan for Sport for 2014–2017, the Expert Group on Human Resource Management in Sport. Importantly, given the EU’s supporting, coordinating and supplementing competence in developing the European dimension in sport, a Commission funded project to address the implications of the ‘compensation culture’ in sport is also recommended.

Beyond the ‘Tomlinson Trap’: Analysing the Effectiveness of Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006

One of the intentions underpinning section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006 was to provide reassurance to individual volunteers, and voluntary organisations, involved in what the provision called ‘desirable activities’ and including sport. The perception was that such volunteers, motivated by an apprehension about their increased vulnerability to negligence liability, and as driven by a fear of a wider societal compensation culture, were engaging excessively in risk-averse behaviour to the detriment of such socially desirable activities. Academic commentary on section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006 has largely regarded the provision as unnecessary and doing little more than restating existing common law practice. This article argues otherwise and, on critically reviewing the emerging jurisprudence, posits the alternative view that section 1, in practice, affords an enhanced level of protection and safeguarding for individuals undertaking functions in connection with a desirable activity. Nonetheless, the occasionally idiosyncratic judicial interpretation given to term ‘desirable activity’, potentially compounded by recent enactment of the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015, remains problematic. Two points of interest will be used to inform this debate. First, an analysis of the then House of Lords’ decision in Tomlinson and its celebrated ‘balancing exercise’ when assessing reasonableness in the context of negligence liability. Second, a fuller analysis of the application of section 1 in the specific context of negligence actions relating to the coaching of sport where it is argued that the, albeit limited, jurisprudence might support the practical utility of a heightened evidential threshold of gross negligence.