Patients and doctors working together in partnership:Birch v UCL Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2008] EWHC 2237 (QB)

Of the myriad of pressing topics current in medical law and ethics, the issue of informed consent appears to be the ‘plainer sibling’. The decision by Cranston J in Birch v UCL Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in 2008 has brought into sharp relief that which many commentators already held to be true. Far from being the ‘plainer sibling’ when weighed against other prominent issues in medical law and ethics, the doctrine of informed consent, is one of the most significant principles to emerge in recent years.

'He was like a zombie':off-label prescription of antipsychotic drugs in dementia

This paper explores the legal position of the off-label prescription of antipsychotic medications to people with dementia who experience behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD). Dementia is a challenging illness, and BPSD can be very difficult for carers to manage, with evidence that this contributes to carer strain and can result in the early institutionalisation of people with dementia. As a result, the prescription of antipsychotic and other neuroleptic medications to treat BPSD has become commonplace, in spite of these drugs being untested and unlicensed for use to treat older people with dementia. In recent years, it has become apparent through clinical trials that antipsychotic drugs increase the risk of cerebrovascular accident (stroke) and death in people with dementia. In addition, these types of medication also have other risk factors for people with dementia, including over-sedation and worsening of cognitive function. Drawing on recent questionnaire (n = 185), focus group (n = 15), and interview (n = 11) data with carers of people with dementia, this paper explores the law relating to off-label prescription, and the applicability of medical negligence law to cases where adverse events follow the use of antipsychotic medication. It is argued that the practice of off-label prescribing requires regulatory intervention in order to protect vulnerable patients. © The Author [2012]. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.

Pharmacy legislation:public protector or professional hindrance?

Pharmacy originates from a background of medication compounding and supply. More recently, this role has developed away from an absolute focus on the supply of pharmaceuticals with, for example, the advent of pharmacist prescribing. Nevertheless, for a majority of the profession, medication supply remains a core activity. Regulation of the pharmacy profession is now the responsibility of the General Pharmaceutical Council, although up until 27 September 2010, this role fell to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB). Before this change, in one of the most high-profile legal cases involving a pharmacist in a professional capacity, R. v Lee, a pharmacist was prosecuted firstly for gross negligence manslaughter, later revised to offences under the Medicines Act 1968, for a single error relating to medication supply, and was given a suspended custodial sentence. Offences against sections 64 or 85 of the Medicines Act are absolute offences and there is no due diligence defence. Prosecution of a pharmacist for the supply of incorrect medication may seem a measured course of action to protect the public from the wrongful supply of potent pharmacotherapeutic agents; however, further analysis of Lee indicates that this approach may be counterproductive. An appeal of the original conviction in the Lee case has resulted in a clarification of the interpretation of section 85(5); however currently, prosecutions under section 64 are still a possibility. Owing to the seriousness of a criminal conviction under section 64, this continuation will potentially stifle the profession's ability to learn from dispensing errors. © The Author [2013]. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.

Medical treatment contrary to parents wishes: the illusion of parental autonomy

The NHS Trust v A (a child) & Ors [2007] EWHC 169

Hospital Medical Group v Westwood 2012

Case law report - online