Podcasts about lanarkshire health board

In tort law, the standard of care is the only degree of prudence and caution required of an individual who is under a duty of care. The requirements of the standard are closely dependent on circumstances. Whether the standard of care has been breached is determined by the trier of fact, and is usually phrased in terms of the reasonable person; this is sometimes labeled as the "reasonable physician standard." It was famously described in Vaughn v Menlove (1837) as whether the individual "proceed with such reasonable caution as a prudent man would have exercised under such circumstances". Professional standard of care. In certain industries and professions, the standard of care is determined by the standard that would be exercised by the reasonably prudent manufacturer of a product, or the reasonably prudent professional in that line of work. Such a test (known as the "Bolam Test") was used to determine whether a doctor was liable for medical malpractice before the 2015 UK Supreme Court decision of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board which introduced further responsibilities on the doctor, echoed in similar judgements in other jurisdictions. The standard of care is important because it can determine the level of negligence required to state a valid cause of action. In the business world the standard of care taken can be described as Due Diligence or performing a Channel Check. Medical standard of care. A standard of care is a medical or psychological treatment guideline and can be general or specific. It specifies appropriate treatment based on scientific evidence and collaboration between medical and/or psychological professionals involved in the treatment of a given condition. Some common examples: • Treatment standards applied within public hospitals to ensure that all patients receive appropriate care regardless of financial means. • Standards of Care for the Health of Transsexual, Transgender, and Gender Nonconforming People 1. Diagnostic and treatment process that a clinician should follow for a certain type of patient, illness, or clinical circumstance. Adjuvant chemotherapy for lung cancer is "a new standard of care, but not necessarily the only standard of care". (New England Journal of Medicine, 2004) 2. In legal terms, the level at which an ordinary, prudent professional with the same training and experience in good standing in a same or similar community would practice under the same or similar circumstances. An "average" standard would not apply because in that case at least half of any group of practitioners would not qualify. The medical malpractice plaintiff must establish the appropriate standard of care and demonstrate that the standard of care has been breached, with expert testimony. 3. A physician also has a "duty to inform" a patient of any material risks or fiduciary interests of the physician that might cause the patient to reconsider a procedure, and may be liable if injury occurs due to the undisclosed risk, and the patient can prove that if he had been informed, he would not have gone through with the procedure, without benefit of hindsight. (Informed Consent Rule.) Full disclosure of all material risks incident to treatment must be fully disclosed, unless doing so would impair urgent treatment. As it relates to mental health professional's standard of care, the California Supreme Court, held that these professionals have "duty to protect" individuals who are specifically threatened by a patient. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Episode 10 of the Debrief podcast series sees Nigel Poole QC in conversation with Nadine Montgomery.Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board is one of the most important clinical negligence judgments of the past 50 years. It confirmed that patient autonomy is sovereign over medical paternalism when it comes to consent to treatment.In Part II of this podcast Nigel and Nadine discuss the ramifications of this landmark judgment.

Episode 10 of the Debrief podcast series sees Nigel Poole QC in conversation with Nadine Montgomery.Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board is one of the most important clinical negligence judgments of the past 50 years. It confirmed that patient autonomy is sovereign over medical paternalism when it comes to consent to treatment.In Part I of the podcast Nadine talks to Nigel about her experience of making a complaint, starting legal proceedings and her fight all the way to the Supreme Court.

Baron Cornelius Ver Heyden de Lancey (1889-1984) was a wealthy and public-spirited Dutchman who at different times in his life was a dentist, doctor, surgeon, barrister and art historian. In 1970 he created the De Lancey and De La Hanty Foundation, to promote studies in medico-legal topics. The Foundation generously gave Cambridge the Ver Heyden de Lancey Fund, which since 1996 has funded occasional public lectures on medico-legal issues of current interest. The The Baron de Lancey Medical Law Lecture 2016 was delivered on 5 February 2016 by Mr James Badenoch QC who acted as counsel for the successful appellant before the UK Supreme Court in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11, and was entitled "Montgomery: a dramatic change in the law on patient consent?". In his lecture James Badenoch outlined the state of the law before the decision in Montgomery and the numerous ways in which it had failed to pay attention to the key distinction, recognised by the Supreme Court in Montgomery, between cases concerning disclosure of information and those concerning the application of medical skill and expertise. He went on to suggest that the decisive break achieved in Montgomery may well prove an apt footing on which to challenge the long-held authority of the so-called 'Bolam' test for whether a medical practitioner has been negligent in situations outside of that considered in Montgomery. For more information about the Baron de Lancey Medical Law Lecture series, please see http://www.lml.law.cam.ac.uk/events/vhdl-events

Baron Cornelius Ver Heyden de Lancey (1889-1984) was a wealthy and public-spirited Dutchman who at different times in his life was a dentist, doctor, surgeon, barrister and art historian. In 1970 he created the De Lancey and De La Hanty Foundation, to promote studies in medico-legal topics. The Foundation generously gave Cambridge the Ver Heyden de Lancey Fund, which since 1996 has funded occasional public lectures on medico-legal issues of current interest. The The Baron de Lancey Medical Law Lecture 2016 was delivered on 5 February 2016 by Mr James Badenoch QC who acted as counsel for the successful appellant before the UK Supreme Court in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11, and was entitled "Montgomery: a dramatic change in the law on patient consent?". In his lecture James Badenoch outlined the state of the law before the decision in Montgomery and the numerous ways in which it had failed to pay attention to the key distinction, recognised by the Supreme Court in Montgomery, between cases concerning disclosure of information and those concerning the application of medical skill and expertise. He went on to suggest that the decisive break achieved in Montgomery may well prove an apt footing on which to challenge the long-held authority of the so-called 'Bolam' test for whether a medical practitioner has been negligent in situations outside of that considered in Montgomery. For more information about the Baron de Lancey Medical Law Lecture series, please see http://www.lml.law.cam.ac.uk/events/vhdl-events This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

Baron Cornelius Ver Heyden de Lancey (1889-1984) was a wealthy and public-spirited Dutchman who at different times in his life was a dentist, doctor, surgeon, barrister and art historian. In 1970 he created the De Lancey and De La Hanty Foundation, to promote studies in medico-legal topics. The Foundation generously gave Cambridge the Ver Heyden de Lancey Fund, which since 1996 has funded occasional public lectures on medico-legal issues of current interest. The The Baron de Lancey Medical Law Lecture 2016 was delivered on 5 February 2016 by Mr James Badenoch QC who acted as counsel for the successful appellant before the UK Supreme Court in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11, and was entitled "Montgomery: a dramatic change in the law on patient consent?". In his lecture James Badenoch outlined the state of the law before the decision in Montgomery and the numerous ways in which it had failed to pay attention to the key distinction, recognised by the Supreme Court in Montgomery, between cases concerning disclosure of information and those concerning the application of medical skill and expertise. He went on to suggest that the decisive break achieved in Montgomery may well prove an apt footing on which to challenge the long-held authority of the so-called 'Bolam' test for whether a medical practitioner has been negligent in situations outside of that considered in Montgomery. For more information about the Baron de Lancey Medical Law Lecture series, please see http://www.lml.law.cam.ac.uk/events/vhdl-events

Baron Cornelius Ver Heyden de Lancey (1889-1984) was a wealthy and public-spirited Dutchman who at different times in his life was a dentist, doctor, surgeon, barrister and art historian. In 1970 he created the De Lancey and De La Hanty Foundation, to promote studies in medico-legal topics. The Foundation generously gave Cambridge the Ver Heyden de Lancey Fund, which since 1996 has funded occasional public lectures on medico-legal issues of current interest. The The Baron de Lancey Medical Law Lecture 2016 was delivered on 5 February 2016 by Mr James Badenoch QC who acted as counsel for the successful appellant before the UK Supreme Court in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11, and was entitled "Montgomery: a dramatic change in the law on patient consent?". In his lecture James Badenoch outlined the state of the law before the decision in Montgomery and the numerous ways in which it had failed to pay attention to the key distinction, recognised by the Supreme Court in Montgomery, between cases concerning disclosure of information and those concerning the application of medical skill and expertise. He went on to suggest that the decisive break achieved in Montgomery may well prove an apt footing on which to challenge the long-held authority of the so-called 'Bolam' test for whether a medical practitioner has been negligent in situations outside of that considered in Montgomery. For more information about the Baron de Lancey Medical Law Lecture series, please see http://www.lml.law.cam.ac.uk/events/vhdl-events

Baron Cornelius Ver Heyden de Lancey (1889-1984) was a wealthy and public-spirited Dutchman who at different times in his life was a dentist, doctor, surgeon, barrister and art historian. In 1970 he created the De Lancey and De La Hanty Foundation, to promote studies in medico-legal topics. The Foundation generously gave Cambridge the Ver Heyden de Lancey Fund, which since 1996 has funded occasional public lectures on medico-legal issues of current interest. The The Baron de Lancey Medical Law Lecture 2016 was delivered on 5 February 2016 by Mr James Badenoch QC who acted as counsel for the successful appellant before the UK Supreme Court in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11, and was entitled "Montgomery: a dramatic change in the law on patient consent?". In his lecture James Badenoch outlined the state of the law before the decision in Montgomery and the numerous ways in which it had failed to pay attention to the key distinction, recognised by the Supreme Court in Montgomery, between cases concerning disclosure of information and those concerning the application of medical skill and expertise. He went on to suggest that the decisive break achieved in Montgomery may well prove an apt footing on which to challenge the long-held authority of the so-called 'Bolam' test for whether a medical practitioner has been negligent in situations outside of that considered in Montgomery. For more information about the Baron de Lancey Medical Law Lecture series, please see http://www.lml.law.cam.ac.uk/events/vhdl-events This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

Baron Cornelius Ver Heyden de Lancey (1889-1984) was a wealthy and public-spirited Dutchman who at different times in his life was a dentist, doctor, surgeon, barrister and art historian. In 1970 he created the De Lancey and De La Hanty Foundation, to promote studies in medico-legal topics. The Foundation generously gave Cambridge the Ver Heyden de Lancey Fund, which since 1996 has funded occasional public lectures on medico-legal issues of current interest. The The Baron de Lancey Medical Law Lecture 2016 was delivered on 5 February 2016 by Mr James Badenoch QC who acted as counsel for the successful appellant before the UK Supreme Court in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11, and was entitled "Montgomery: a dramatic change in the law on patient consent?". In his lecture James Badenoch outlined the state of the law before the decision in Montgomery and the numerous ways in which it had failed to pay attention to the key distinction, recognised by the Supreme Court in Montgomery, between cases concerning disclosure of information and those concerning the application of medical skill and expertise. He went on to suggest that the decisive break achieved in Montgomery may well prove an apt footing on which to challenge the long-held authority of the so-called 'Bolam' test for whether a medical practitioner has been negligent in situations outside of that considered in Montgomery. For more information about the Baron de Lancey Medical Law Lecture series, please see http://www.lml.law.cam.ac.uk/events/vhdl-events This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

Baron Cornelius Ver Heyden de Lancey (1889-1984) was a wealthy and public-spirited Dutchman who at different times in his life was a dentist, doctor, surgeon, barrister and art historian. In 1970 he created the De Lancey and De La Hanty Foundation, to promote studies in medico-legal topics. The Foundation generously gave Cambridge the Ver Heyden de Lancey Fund, which since 1996 has funded occasional public lectures on medico-legal issues of current interest. The The Baron de Lancey Medical Law Lecture 2016 was delivered on 5 February 2016 by Mr James Badenoch QC who acted as counsel for the successful appellant before the UK Supreme Court in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11, and was entitled "Montgomery: a dramatic change in the law on patient consent?". In his lecture James Badenoch outlined the state of the law before the decision in Montgomery and the numerous ways in which it had failed to pay attention to the key distinction, recognised by the Supreme Court in Montgomery, between cases concerning disclosure of information and those concerning the application of medical skill and expertise. He went on to suggest that the decisive break achieved in Montgomery may well prove an apt footing on which to challenge the long-held authority of the so-called 'Bolam' test for whether a medical practitioner has been negligent in situations outside of that considered in Montgomery. For more information about the Baron de Lancey Medical Law Lecture series, please see http://www.lml.law.cam.ac.uk/events/vhdl-events

Baron Cornelius Ver Heyden de Lancey (1889-1984) was a wealthy and public-spirited Dutchman who at different times in his life was a dentist, doctor, surgeon, barrister and art historian. In 1970 he created the De Lancey and De La Hanty Foundation, to promote studies in medico-legal topics. The Foundation generously gave Cambridge the Ver Heyden de Lancey Fund, which since 1996 has funded occasional public lectures on medico-legal issues of current interest. The The Baron de Lancey Medical Law Lecture 2016 was delivered on 5 February 2016 by Mr James Badenoch QC who acted as counsel for the successful appellant before the UK Supreme Court in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11, and was entitled "Montgomery: a dramatic change in the law on patient consent?". In his lecture James Badenoch outlined the state of the law before the decision in Montgomery and the numerous ways in which it had failed to pay attention to the key distinction, recognised by the Supreme Court in Montgomery, between cases concerning disclosure of information and those concerning the application of medical skill and expertise. He went on to suggest that the decisive break achieved in Montgomery may well prove an apt footing on which to challenge the long-held authority of the so-called 'Bolam' test for whether a medical practitioner has been negligent in situations outside of that considered in Montgomery. For more information about the Baron de Lancey Medical Law Lecture series, please see http://www.lml.law.cam.ac.uk/events/vhdl-events