swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Health - From: 1995 To: 1995
This page lists 9 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.
Re T and E (proceedings: conflicting interests); 1995 - [1995] 1 FLR 581
In Re S (Hospital Patient: Court's Jurisdiction); CA 6-Mar-1995 - Independent, 07 March 1995; Times, 06 March 1995; Gazette, 12 April 1995; [1996] Fam 1
Regina v Cambridge and Huntingdon Health Committee Ex Parte B Independent, 14 March 1995; Times, 15 March 1995; [1995] 1 WLR 898; [1995] EWCA Civ 43; [1995] EWCA Civ 49; [1995] Fam Law 480; [1995] 6 Med LR 250; [1995] 1 FLR 1056; [1995] 2 FCR 485; [1995] 2 All ER 129; [1995] COD 407
10 Mar 1995
CA
Sir Thomas Bingham MR
Health, Children
A decision by a Health Authority to withhold treatment for a patient could be properly so made. It was not ordinarily to be a matter for lawyers. A Health Authority's withholding of treatment, which might not be in a child's simple best interests could even so be lawful, but when called upon, it would have to show substantial cause for its decisions.
Where the use of limited resources has to be decided, the undesirability of the court stepping in too quickly was made clear: (Sir Thomas Bingham MR) "I have no doubt that in a perfect world any treatment which a patient, or a patient's family, sought would be provided if doctors were willing to give it, no matter how much it cost, particularly when a life was potentially at stake. It would however, in my view, be shutting one's eyes to the real world if the court were to proceed on the basis that we do live in such a world. It is common knowledge that health authorities of all kinds are constantly pressed to make ends meet. They cannot pay their nurses as much as they would like; they cannot provide all the treatments they would like; they cannot purchase all the extremely expensive medical equipment they would like; they cannot carry out all the research they would like; they cannot build all the hospitals and specialist units they would like. Difficult and agonising judgments have to be made as to how a limited budget is best allocated to the maximum advantage of the maximum number of patients. That is not a judgment which the court can make. In my judgment, it is not something that a health authority such as this authority can be fairly criticised for not advancing before the court."
Sir Thomas Bingham MR: '. . . the courts are not, contrary to what is sometimes believed, arbiters as to the merits of cases of this kind. Were we to express opinions as to the likelihood of the effectiveness of medical treatment, or as to the merits of medical judgment, then we should be straying far from the sphere which under our constitution is accorded to us. We have one function only, which is to rule upon the lawfulness of decisions. That is a function to which we should strictly confine ourselves.'
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
J and others v Switzerland 22398/93
5 Apr 1995
ECHR
Human Rights, Health
Even relatively minor medical treatment, if compulsory, may engage article 8.
European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Citers
Regina v Wilson; CACD 17-Jul-1995 - Ind Summary, 17 July 1995
Re S (#2) Hospital Patient Jurisdiction; FD 7-Aug-1995 - Ind Summary, 07 August 1995
Re V; Handicapped Adult: Right to Decide Residence Ind Summary, 14 August 1995
14 Aug 1995
FD
Jurisdiction, Health
The court may intervene to decide on the care of a mentally handicapped adult where there is a risk of harm to that adult if no care arrangements are made.
Regina v Licensing Authority of the Department of Health and Norgine, ex parte Scotia Pharmaceuticals (Judgment) C-440/93; [1995] EUECJ C-440/93
5 Oct 1995
ECJ
European, Health
Europa Point (8)(a)(ii) of the second paragraph of Article 4 of Directive 65/65 concerning proprietary medicinal products, as amended by Directive 87/21, which establishes in certain circumstances an abridged procedure for the issue of marketing authorization for proprietary medicinal products and lays down the conditions under which recourse may be had to that procedure, must, having regard both to the fundamental objective of the directive, which is to safeguard public health, and to the need to ensure that recourse to simplified procedures for marketing products similar to those already authorized does not result in damage to the interests of innovative firms, be interpreted as meaning that a national authority with competence to issue national marketing authorization cannot have discretion to issue authorization under the abridged procedure when the abovementioned conditions have not been satisfied. That means that such authorization may not be issued where the particulars and documents submitted in support of an application do not contain detailed references to published scientific literature presented in accordance with each of the requirements laid down in Parts 2 and 3 of the Annex to Directive 75/318 concerning analytical, pharmacotoxicological and clinical standards and protocols in respect of the testing of proprietary medicinal products, and where those documents do not comprise experts' reports complying with each of the requirements laid down in Articles 1 and 2 of Directive 75/319 concerning proprietary medicinal products.
[ Bailii ]
In re S-C (Mental Patient: Habeas Corpus) [1996] QB 599; QBCOF 95/1657/D; [1996] 2 WLR 146; (1996) 29 BMLR 138; [1996] 1 All ER 532; [1996] Fam Law 210; [1995] EWCA Civ 60; [1996] 2 FCR 692; [1996] 1 FLR 548
22 Nov 1995
CA
Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Neill, Hirst LJJ
Health, Constitutional, Torts - Other
The Court of Appeal issued habeas corpus because the applicant was committed to a mental institution pursuant to an application which was made by somebody who lacked the statutory authority to make it. The right of personal freedom is fundamental. In the mental health context, if someone is to be taken out of the community and detained in a hospital there must be clear evidence that the medical condition of a patient justifies such action. A social worker could not make an application for an admission if the nearest relative objected. The correct procedures had not been followed.
Sir Thomas Bingham MR said: "As we are all well aware, no adult citizen of the United Kingdom is liable to be confined in any institution against his will, save by authority of law. That is a fundamental constitutional principle, traceable back to chapter 29 of Magna Carta 1297 . . and before that to chapter 39 of Magna Carta 1215."
Mental Health Act 1983 - Magna Carta 1297 29 - Magna Carta 1215 39
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
