People are travelling abroad for plastic surgery procedures. In some cases there has bee injury or death. There can be issues of lack of regulation and insurance. Today I'm chairing a PEOPIL webinar to consider the issues presented. Great line up of speakers
Kicking of the webinar with a presentation by Titus Adams Consultant Plastic Surgeon with a fabulous presentation emphasising the importance of post operative care and dangers of the cheapest possible price approach and aggressive online marketing #PEOPILwebinar
Important complications such as wound infection, breakdown and pain often present as late complications following surgery. Access to the surgeon or clinic may be difficult. Access to notes Lack of follow up. Communication issues. Lack of data
Handing over to Isabel Bathurst, Solicitor Advocate from Scott-Moncrieff and Associates highlighting the cases of surgery abroad where people have died following cheap procedures. The cost of revision is over 30 billion over last 5 years.
Last speaker Babs Forman of Skin Confident Ltd. Speaking on the use of skin camouflage to try and help people to deal with the psychological aspects of scarring and skin damage. Consideration should be given to including costs in claims for clients.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
O'Neill -the doctor-patient relationship should be one of trust with no consideration of self-interest or gain. It is supposed to be long-lasting, intimate and trusting but the problem is its based on asymmetric knowledge and power with potential for abuse
She suggests the relationship was viewed as one of trust only because the paternalistic view of medicine was assumed. Was it one of reasonable trust? Was this trust based on a lack of any alternative and an inability to determine when trust was misplaced?
This traditional paternalistic conception of the doctor-patient relationship was defective and could not provide an adequate context for reasonable trust. A more adequate basis for reasonable trust required the patient to be placed on a more equal footing
Hospital prosecuted in the first duty of candour prosecution in England after the death of a patient following perforation of her oesophagus during an endoscopy. There was no timely apology and a lack of candour with the family cqc.org.uk/.../regulation…
The judge said: “This offence is a very good example of why these regulatory offences are very important. Not only have [the family] had to come to terms with their tragic death, but their loss has been compounded by the trust’s lack of candour.”
“All care providers have a duty to be open and transparent with patients and their loved ones, particularly when something goes wrong, and this case sends a clear message that we will not hesitate to take action when that does not happen'
And this is how we do conferences in a COVID world. Inspire MediLaw Acquired Brain injury Conference for lawyers. Top class line up of medical speakers in this challenging area.
First speaker Mr Peter Whitfield Consultant Neurosurgeon on traumatic brain injury -types investigations and treatment. Fabulous presentation detailing the importance of early identification and specialist treatment of brain injury.
After a fabulous first session now Dr Andrew Harrison Consultant Neuropsychologist and Director of Case Management Services Edinburgh talking on neuropsychological assessment of brain injury
Kicking off Inspire MediLaw annual expert witness conference with Paul Sankey Enable Law. Recording consultations with medical experts. Is the evidence admissible?
Discussing the case of Williams v Jarvis 2008 EWHC 2346 (QB) where the claimant had covertly recorded her consultation with the medical expert. She was able to use this in court to demonstrate a number of facts in the expert report were inaccurate.
Darren Deery partner Drummond Miller Edinburgh discussing a number of important medical cases this year with particular reference to medical expert witnesses
In my lecture I discuss that in consenting patients are in fact performing an act of authorisation. To enable them to do so they require information and there must be effective communication. It is not simply a call for more or different information.
Its a call for a different way of viewing and structuring the process of soliciting consent. The emphasis is on assisting the patient to have a substantial understanding of what is at stake in the act of authorisation.
This is not discharged by the competent recital of a string of pertinent facts or handing out lists of complications attached to a well conceived consent form. Use of "feedback" testing may assist in assessing whether there is substantial understanding
Coggon and Miola state that the courts have failed to fully consider how "autonomy" might be exercised by patients. They have focused on what is "material" rather than any more substantive reflection on what autonomy really means for patients.
The end result they say is a misconceived attempt to prioritise a principle that may at times be counter-productive for patients. The focus is on provision of information without considering the question of understanding that information.
The fundamental flaw is that the provision of information does not in itself guarantee that an autonomous decision can be made. It only guarantees that information is passed on to the patient. It does not guarantee that the patient can then act autonomously