Long term nursing: Social care or health care?: Judgment clarified the law but did not remedy its unfairness

BMJ

Volumn 320, Issue 7226, 2000, Pages 5-6

  Loux, Andrea ^a   Kerrison, Susan ^a   Pollock, Allyson M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CASE REPORT; EDITORIAL; FEMALE; FINANCE; HEALTH CARE; HUMAN; LAW SUIT; LONG TERM CARE; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; NURSING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESPONSIBILITY; SOCIAL CARE; SOCIAL WORK;

GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH FACILITY CLOSURE; HUMANS; LONG-TERM CARE; NURSING HOMES; STATE MEDICINE;

EID: 0034097444     PISSN: 09598138     EISSN: 14685833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.320.7226.5     Document Type: Editorial

References (7)

1. The Court of Appeal. Judgment QB COF 99/0110/CMS4. http://tap.ccta.gov.uk/courtser/judgments…2da1f63048cc802567b000352a21.
2. Regina v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan. Times 1998; 29 Dec.
3. Justice. A matter of public interest: reforming the law and practice on interventions in public interest cases. London: Justice, 1996.
4. Dyer C. Woman's nursing home victory saves NHS millions. Guardian 1999; 17 Jul: 1–2.
5. Hancock C. Hope for the elderly. Express 1999 21 Jul:32.
6. Department of Health. Ex Parte Coughlan: follow up action. London: DoH (HSC 1999/180:LAC(99)30).
7. Royal Commission on Long Term Care. With respect to old age: long term care rights and responsibilities. London: Stationery Office, 1999 (Cm 4192-I).