Robert Forrest wrote:>
> 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.
I don't think this an appropriate forum to discuss the Sally Clark
case. I was using a topical example - the day after the Radio4
report - to illustrate my strong conviction that labs must allow all
patients (or, in the case of children their parents) access to their
results. We also comment on reports and a comment on a GP
patient report of (say) "borderline TSH, suggest repeat in 6 months"
or "consider a diagnosis of diabetes" should be given to the patient.
The post from David Brown in Valencia shows that this system
works well in Spain. The reputation of Pathology labs in general
has been harmed by the organ retention scandal. We should be as
open as possible and patient access to results will reduce
accusations of cover-up in medical negligence cases.
Mike Collins
Mike Collins MLSO3
Clinical Biochemistry & Immunology
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
2915
http://www.leedsteachinghospitals.com
------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/
|