Why are there lawyers out there allowing people to sue
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7587102.stm
Girl dies even though she has been diagnosed with a genetic condition. But decided she was not going to tell her parents, as she was 17.
So what gives the right for a lawyer to think he can take action against the Council?? When they have done nothing wrong.
Girl dies even though she has been diagnosed with a genetic condition. But decided she was not going to tell her parents, as she was 17.
So what gives the right for a lawyer to think he can take action against the Council?? When they have done nothing wrong.
while I don't think that the Council has a case to answer here, are you suggesting that we do away with courts and the judicial system, and instead reily entirely on solicitors to decide on guilt/liability?!
You can take anything/anyone to court ... it's for the court to decide if you have a case.
You can take anything/anyone to court ... it's for the court to decide if you have a case.
elster said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7587102.stm
Girl dies even though she has been diagnosed with a genetic condition. But decided she was not going to tell her parents, as she was 17.
So what gives the right for a lawyer to think he can take action against the Council?? When they have done nothing wrong.
Surely the lawyer is only acting "under instruction"...it's the parents doing the suing? You should be asking what gives them the right....Girl dies even though she has been diagnosed with a genetic condition. But decided she was not going to tell her parents, as she was 17.
So what gives the right for a lawyer to think he can take action against the Council?? When they have done nothing wrong.
It sounds like councils and education professionals are getting caught up in the mess that is the law.
I think that over the age of 16 the person is responsible for telling parents of whatever.
Below 16 i think the school should have to tell the parents, whether it be pregnancy or anything else.
Keep it simple.
I think that over the age of 16 the person is responsible for telling parents of whatever.
Below 16 i think the school should have to tell the parents, whether it be pregnancy or anything else.
Keep it simple.
Swilly said:
It sounds like councils and education professionals are getting caught up in the mess that is the law.
I think that over the age of 16 the person is responsible for telling parents of whatever.
Below 16 i think the school should have to tell the parents, whether it be pregnancy or anything else.
Keep it simple.
Yep,but the school/doctor or whoever doesn't have to tell the parents a thing.....so you can have a situation where everyone but the parents knows what is happening..barmy if you ask me...I think that over the age of 16 the person is responsible for telling parents of whatever.
Below 16 i think the school should have to tell the parents, whether it be pregnancy or anything else.
Keep it simple.
esselte said:
Swilly said:
It sounds like councils and education professionals are getting caught up in the mess that is the law.
I think that over the age of 16 the person is responsible for telling parents of whatever.
Below 16 i think the school should have to tell the parents, whether it be pregnancy or anything else.
Keep it simple.
Yep,but the school/doctor or whoever doesn't have to tell the parents a thing.....so you can have a situation where everyone but the parents knows what is happening..barmy if you ask me...I think that over the age of 16 the person is responsible for telling parents of whatever.
Below 16 i think the school should have to tell the parents, whether it be pregnancy or anything else.
Keep it simple.
Over 16 the person is able to determine themselves.
Swilly said:
esselte said:
Swilly said:
It sounds like councils and education professionals are getting caught up in the mess that is the law.
I think that over the age of 16 the person is responsible for telling parents of whatever.
Below 16 i think the school should have to tell the parents, whether it be pregnancy or anything else.
Keep it simple.
Yep,but the school/doctor or whoever doesn't have to tell the parents a thing.....so you can have a situation where everyone but the parents knows what is happening..barmy if you ask me...I think that over the age of 16 the person is responsible for telling parents of whatever.
Below 16 i think the school should have to tell the parents, whether it be pregnancy or anything else.
Keep it simple.
Over 16 the person is able to determine themselves.
What's the point in suing though? It won't bring the girl back. It's purely their potential way of "punishing" the system that allowed this to happen.
I think a lot of medical negligence cases are rather frivolous. (NB: Not all of them!) Such as people suing because they've been told (incorrectly) that they have cancer, then 2 weeks later they're told there was a mistake and they're going to live - so they sue for the stress of living under a death sentence for 2 weeks. Shouldn't they just be glad they're not going to die a long and painful death??
I can appreciate that some medical actions are necessary, such as negligence cases where someone has been disabled for life. Or whatever. But in this case, everything was done as per the law. So where are the grounds for action?
I do feel sorry for them. But getting on the ambulance chasing wagon won't help anyone. And if they win, it'll divert funds that could've been used to save other kids with the same heart problem.
I think a lot of medical negligence cases are rather frivolous. (NB: Not all of them!) Such as people suing because they've been told (incorrectly) that they have cancer, then 2 weeks later they're told there was a mistake and they're going to live - so they sue for the stress of living under a death sentence for 2 weeks. Shouldn't they just be glad they're not going to die a long and painful death??
I can appreciate that some medical actions are necessary, such as negligence cases where someone has been disabled for life. Or whatever. But in this case, everything was done as per the law. So where are the grounds for action?
I do feel sorry for them. But getting on the ambulance chasing wagon won't help anyone. And if they win, it'll divert funds that could've been used to save other kids with the same heart problem.
Edited by SGirl on Friday 29th August 11:18
esselte said:
Justayellowbadge said:
If I'm reading that right, they didn't identify the heart condition untill after she died.
She was diagnosed with stress.
The parents are clearly grieving, and my sympathies are with them, but they need shooting.
Yep,you're reading it right...She was diagnosed with stress.
The parents are clearly grieving, and my sympathies are with them, but they need shooting.
elster said:
Can't someone look in the book of Law and see, no that breaks no rules.
Trouble is that in some cases there's either nothing in The Big Book Of Law, or what is in The Big Book Of Law doesn't fit the exact circumstances, and when that happens it's down to the courts to effectively create The Law (with due reference to any existing precedents, acts of parliament etc, etc, etc) and add it to The Big Book...What I understand [and bear in mind here that A) I'm not even nearly a lawyer and B) I've only seen a couple of brief reports] is that the justification for the parents not being informed that their daughter had been taken to a GP on school time was something called The Gillick Principal[1], an entirely reasonable piece of law which (quite sensibly in my view) states that young people can start making decisions about their own bodies for themselves, can take some degree of responsibility for their own well being, end should be able enjoy a degree of Doctor/Patient confidentiality before they reach the age of majority and this is what the parents are seeking to challenge.
[1] Named for the odious and aptly named Victoria Gillick who's attitude to family planning was clearly discernible from the fact that she had about 20 kids and would rather see her daughter(s) (or for that matter her son(s) partners) pregnant at 15 than be prescribed contraception without her knowledge...
--
JG
elster said:
Can't someone look in the book of Law and see, no that breaks no rules. So lets not waste thousands of pounds going to court over something that is clearly stated as done by the book.
Obviously upset parents are going to say I want to see someone take the blame.
Can't a lwayer say no?
Of course - a halfway decent lawyer would always tell their client if s/he thinks that there's no realistic prospect of success. Obviously upset parents are going to say I want to see someone take the blame.
Can't a lwayer say no?
But what are you supposed to do if they won't listen and want to proceed anyway....? If they can pay the fees, it's not the lawyers job to act as a barrier to them bringing the claim.
I don't know much about this area of law but I'm assuming that the parents have taken advice from someone who does and have been told that the law is ambiguous on the point, or that there's something here to distinguish it from previously-decided cases.
If the case IS without merit, they'll lose and have to pay the other side's costs. That's the sanction for bringing a claim that does not succeed, designed to deter claims without merit.
(It's a bit different if there's public funding involved as the lawyer does then have a duty to the third party funder to advise on whether the claim has merit - but that's unlikely to apply here as there is precious little Legal Aid available for civil claims these days...)
bigbadbikercats said:
elster said:
Can't someone look in the book of Law and see, no that breaks no rules.
Trouble is that in some cases there's either nothing in The Big Book Of Law, or what is in The Big Book Of Law doesn't fit the exact circumstances, and when that happens it's down to the courts to effectively create The Law (with due reference to any existing precedents, acts of parliament etc, etc, etc) and add it to The Big Book...What I understand [and bear in mind here that A) I'm not even nearly a lawyer and B) I've only seen a couple of brief reports] is that the justification for the parents not being informed that their daughter had been taken to a GP on school time was something called The Gillick Principal[1], an entirely reasonable piece of law which (quite sensibly in my view) states that young people can start making decisions about their own bodies for themselves, can take some degree of responsibility for their own well being, end should be able enjoy a degree of Doctor/Patient confidentiality before they reach the age of majority and this is what the parents are seeking to challenge.
[1] Named for the odious and aptly named Victoria Gillick who's attitude to family planning was clearly discernible from the fact that she had about 20 kids and would rather see her daughter(s) (or for that matter her son(s) partners) pregnant at 15 than be prescribed contraception without her knowledge...
--
JG
Swilly said:
This is exactly my point.. .i would change the law to make it that under the age of 16, the authority/school/doctor etc is obliged to tell the parents.
Over 16 the person is able to determine themselves.
Say a 15 year old has unprotected sex and knows that her parents will go ballistic if they find out, your law would stop them going to the GP for the morning after pill.Over 16 the person is able to determine themselves.
mechsympathy said:
Swilly said:
This is exactly my point.. .i would change the law to make it that under the age of 16, the authority/school/doctor etc is obliged to tell the parents.
Over 16 the person is able to determine themselves.
Say a 15 year old has unprotected sex and knows that her parents will go ballistic if they find out, your law would stop them going to the GP for the morning after pill.Over 16 the person is able to determine themselves.
esselte said:
Maybe a few more parents going ballistic is what we need?
Unfortunately, it's too late by then. Hormonal charged teenagers will inevitably do what hormonally charged teenagers do. They're often then daft enough to ignore the problem if the alternative is a load of grief from their parents.Changing the law to prevent capable under 16s making their own decisions won't change the poor parenting that a great many of them have experienced.
It also would have made no difference in this case, as a) the girl was 17 and b) the heart problem was undiagnosed.
esselte said:
mechsympathy said:
Swilly said:
This is exactly my point.. .i would change the law to make it that under the age of 16, the authority/school/doctor etc is obliged to tell the parents.
Over 16 the person is able to determine themselves.
Say a 15 year old has unprotected sex and knows that her parents will go ballistic if they find out, your law would stop them going to the GP for the morning after pill.Over 16 the person is able to determine themselves.
The law is not complicated regarding consent to medical treatment for under 16s. The Gillick competence, named from Gillick vs West Norfolk and Wisbech area health authority in 1985 (a suprisingly enlightened decision from the law lords), allows that the treating doctor can decide if the underage patient is competent to decide on medical treatment without involving his or her parents. After all, whos body is it? If a 15 year old girl finds herself pregnant and is made to carry to term by "devout" parents who has to live with the consequences for the next 18 years? Not the parents who can kick the pregnant girl out when she's 16.
Parents going ballistic is rarely the solution, I have never understood what the fire and brimstone approach to parenting actually achieves other than alienating the child.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff