C contends that DD breached a duty of care owed to her and/or acted contrary to her rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in failing to alert her to the risk that she had inherited the gene for Huntington’s disease in time for her to terminate her pregnancy… [1]
The genetic risk had been revealed to DD through diagnosis of C’s father. He declined to consent to disclosure of the information to C and DD clinicians took the view that they should not override his confidentiality. DD deny that, as a matter of law, they owed any relevant duty of care to the claimant. Even if such a duty was owed, they contend, on the facts of the case, that they did not breach that duty. Further, they maintain that even if there was a breach of duty, it did not cause C any injury because the evidence does not establish that she would have had a termination but for the breach. DD say that the claim under the Human Rights Act 1998 fails for the same reasons as the common law claim. [2]
In all the circumstances, the common law claim fails on breach of duty and causation. Further, the alternative human rights claim cannot be maintained on the findings… [265]
medicalnegligencenow.com 