>Yes you are being old-fashioned. The patient's results should be
>given to the patient. The Sally Clark appeal shows one of the
>reasons for this. An important pathology report on one of her
>children was concealed from the defence. As a result she was
>jailed.
Sally Clark was jailed because a Jury found her guilty of two murders beyond
reasonable doubt.
The Court of appeal has already concluded once that the convictions were
well founded.
Let's see what the Court of appeal makes of the alleged non disclosure of
this "new" pathology report relating to one of the deceased, before saying
she was jailed as a result of the none disclosure of a pathology report.
The case is incredibly complex and this "new" report is only a very small
part of a mass of evidence. Non UK list members might like to look at this
news report for some background:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F07%2F03%2Fnc
lark03.xml
There is much of relevance in this case for laboratory practice, but I don't
think you can reasonably argue that all lab reports should be given to every
patient on the basis of what is public so far about the CCRC's referral of
her case to the Court of Appeal this time round.
Robert Forrest
------ACB discussion List Information--------
This is an open discussion list for the academic and clinical
community working in clinical biochemistry.
Please note, archived messages are public and can be viewed
via the internet. Views expressed are those of the individual and
they are responsible for all message content.
ACB Web Site
http://www.acb.org.uk
List Archives
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN.html
List Instructions (How to leave etc.)
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/
|