>Forwarded message:
>Sent: Wed Oct 06 03:12:11 1999
>Received: Wed Oct 06 03:12:37 1999
>
>To:
> /g=Wayne/s=Collins/ou=PATHOLOGY/o=NHS PRESTON ACUTE HOSPITALS TR/prmd=NHS N WEST HN/admd=NHS/c=GB/
>From:
> /g=martin/s=myers/ou=pathology/o=nhs preston acute hospitals tr/prmd=nhs n west hn/admd=nhs/c=gb/
>
>Subject: Chain of Custody
>
>I agree with Professor Forrest. The laboratory has a duty of care to the patient. The laboratory is set up for this and not set up for the legal system. Any attempt to change this is would impinge on our duty of care, and the resources required w>ould be highly significant.
>
>With reference to supply of a patient's sample, my interpretation of the law is simple:
>
>I have CPA approved protocols on the routine disposal of samples. If a sample is required after it has been disposed, and I followed my normal procedures, the Police and the legal system cannot complain.
>
>If samples are identified by the police prior to disposal (or in my opinion by the Medic, the Pathologist, the Coroner, the Chief Executive) then I keep them.
>
>If the Police subsequently want them then there are procedures laid down for this.
>
>If the Coroner wants them then I do what I am told.
>
>It would be for the courts to decide whether the results on such samples can be used as evidence. I have an audit trail satisfactory for Clinical purposes. The Law is a fickle beast and it not my intention to try to anticipate its every requiremen>t. If there is a requirement for every laboratory to be proactive in anticipating samples required by the legal system and ensure chain of custody in the legal sense then an injection of significantly more than £10 Million would be required for us t>o do this.
>
>
>Martin Myers
>Preston
EM-ID=C38CB015
Enterprise Mail Additional Enclosure.
Enclosure file names :
Enclosure 1
|