(4 days, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberI am not sure whether the noble Lord is asking that in the context of giving information or of doing it negligently. The effect of Clause 33(2) is that nothing prevents the obligation on the doctor to act with reasonable care towards the patient. If, carelessly, the doctor failed to set out all the risks or maladministered the assistance, either the patient or the estate of the patient would have a claim against that doctor for negligence. There might be a dependency claim as well.
I am sorry, but I think the noble and learned Lord has not quite picked up the noble Lord’s point. Of course, if the doctor does not explain it properly, or if the doctor maladministers the drug, there is liability in tort. As I understood the point being put, the doctor has explained it properly and the patient has administered the drug properly under supervision, but the patient has not died and is writhing around, for example. What is the doctor then meant to do, consistent with their duty of care to the patient? As I understand it, that is the question. I do not know the answer, but that, I think, at least is the question.
In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, regarding the complications, that has to be agreed in advance. I did not think that that was the question from the noble Lord, Lord Stevens.
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberBefore my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord might take the opportunity to respond to the point I put to him on confirming the drafting of that amendment. He must have overlooked it.
That is in the notes, but I will write to the noble Lord on that.