header-logo header-logo

27 October 2014
Issue: 7628 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Saatchi's Medical Innovation Bill may impact on patient safety

Personal injury lawyers have warned Lord Saatchi’s Medical Innovation Bill could drive vulnerable patients into the hands of “maverick” doctors.

Lord Saatchi’s bill would give legal protection to doctors seeking to try alternative procedures or treatments for cancer. It goes to committee stage in the House of Lords next week.

However, John Spencer, president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (Apil) said that, contrary to popular perception, the Bill would not just apply to “dying people who are willing to give anything a chance". 

“In fact, the Bill will affect all patients who, in their vulnerability, may be tempted to take risks at the hands of maverick doctors who are over-ambitious in their drive to make names for themselves. Lord Saatchi’s amendments to the Bill do not address concerns about patient safety raised by doctors, patient groups, and medical research organisations. 

“Under the Bill, a doctor needs to only ‘obtain the views’ of an ‘appropriately qualified doctor’ before undertaking an innovative treatment.

"Crucially, he would not have to act on those views, and we still don’t know what an ‘appropriately qualified doctor’ is.”

Spencer said he had heard of no cases of a doctor being sued for using an innovative treatment, and that if some doctors were holding back from certain treatments due to a misunderstanding of the law then that could be could by “an effort to educate, not legislate”.

 

Issue: 7628 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll