Rights to medical treatment in EU Law

Medical Law Review

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 99-108

  McHale, Jean V ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGED; CASE REPORT; ECONOMICS; EUROPEAN UNION; FEMALE; FRANCE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HIP ARTHROPLASTY; HIP OSTEOARTHRITIS; HOSPITAL ADMISSION; HUMAN; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; LEGAL ASPECT; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; NOTE; ORTHOPEDICS; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PATIENT RIGHT; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; UNITED KINGDOM;

AGED; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, HIP; EUROPEAN UNION; FEMALE; FRANCE; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY; HUMANS; INTERNATIONALITY; ORTHOPEDICS; OSTEOARTHRITIS, HIP; PATIENT RIGHTS; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; STATE MEDICINE; WAITING LISTS;

EID: 33847786908     PISSN: 09670742     EISSN: 14643790     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwl026     Document Type: Note

References (26)

1. The scheme required a consultant to give a medical opinion supporting the treatment abroad. Secondly, the PCT must agree to fund the treatment. Finally, the Department of Health must give ultimate approval to the scheme.
2. See further e.g. T.K. Hervey and J.V. McHale, Health Law and the European Union (CUP 2004) chapter 4
3. P. Cabral, 'The Internal Market and the Right to Cross-Border Medical Care' (2004) 29(5) European Law Review 673
4. P. Koutrakos, 'Healthcare as an Economic Service Under EC Law' in M. Dougan and E. Spaventa (eds) Social Welfare and EU Law (Hart Publishing 2005).
5. Luisi and Carbone v Ministero del Tesoro (joined cases 286/82 and 26/ 83) [1984] E.C.R. 377.
6. Case C-158/96 Kohll [1998] E.C.R.-I-1935.
7. Case C-157/99 Judgment of 21 July 2001.
8. Case C 385/99 Muller Faure and Van Riet [2003] E.C.R.-I-4509.
9. Ibid. I-6447.
10. Case C-56/01 Inizan v. Caisse Primarie d'Assurance Maladie des Hauts de Seine [2003] ECR I).
11. Supra n. 4.
12. R v. Bedford PCT v. the Secretary of State for Health ex parte Watts [2003] E.W.H.C 2228.
13. See further the discussion of Mumby J.'s judgment in J.W. McHale, 'Law, Patient's Rights and NHS Resource Allocation: Is Eurostar the Answer?' (2006) 14(3) Health Care Analysis 169.
14. Note, however, thatMrsWatts had suffered delay between October 2002 and February 2003, but this was not taken into account in ascertaining whether she had suffered undue delay.
15. Secretary of State for Health v. R, ex parte Watts [2004] E.W.C.A. Civ 166.
16. J. Montgomery 'The Impact of EU law on English Health care Law' in M. Dougan and E. Spaventa (eds) Social Welfare and EU law (Hart Publishing 2005), at page 155.
17. Para 122.
18. C. Newdick, Who Shall we Treat? (2nd edn) Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. page 244.
19. See further the discussion in J. Montgomery, 'Lawand the Demoralisation of Medicine, (2006) 26(2) Legal Studies 185 at p. 198.
20. One interesting possibility is whether the ECJ judgment may lead the NHS to enter into further agreements to speed up treatment provision by sending patients abroad which was the response of the UK Government to the earlier Geraet Smits decision see further Montgomery, n. 13, p. 154
21. and McHale and Bell n. 18.
22. See for example, the discussion of this in J. McHale and M. Bell, 'Traveller's checks' [2002] Health Service Journal 39.
23. Report on Patient Mobility and Health Care Developments in the EU (2005).
24. This is a group comprised of senior representatives from member states along with stakeholders. See for example Work of the High Level Group on Health Services and Medical Care, HLG/2005/16.
25. Council Conclusions of Common Values and Principles in EU HealthSystems 2733rd Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council Meeting, Luxembourg, 1-2 June 2006.
26. Communication from the Commission, Consultation Regarding Community action on Health Services, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, 26 September 2006.