Judicial review: Low-priority treatment and exceptional case review

Medical Law Review

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 236-244

  Newdick, Christopher ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF READING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HUMAN; INSURANCE; LEGAL ASPECT; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; NOTE; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; UNITED KINGDOM;

FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HEALTH SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY; HUMANS; INSURANCE CLAIM REVIEW; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; STATE MEDICINE;

EID: 34447636626     PISSN: 09670742     EISSN: 14643790     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwm008     Document Type: Note

References (34)

1. Given their duty not to exceed their annual financial allocations. See s. 97 National Health Service Act 1977 (as amended)
2. and R. v. N. W. Lancashire Health Authority, ex parte A, D & G (1999) Lloyds Rep Med 399 at 408: 'It makes sense to have a policy for the purpose - indeed, it might well be irrational not to have one' per Auld L. J.
3. [2006] E.W.C.A. Civ 392.
4. The treatment obtained NICE approval soon afterwards: NICE, Trastuzamab for the adjuvant treatment of early stage HER2-positive breast cancer Technology Appraisal, n. 107, 2006.
5. See [27] of the judgment and NHS Chief Executive Bulletin, 2005/2006, 300.
6. [2006] E.W.H.C. 171.
7. At [79-81].
8. A. Wagstaff, 'Beyond the Herceptin Hype - We Need to Raise the Level of Debate' (2006) Cancer World, March-April, 14.
9. See R. v. N. Derbyshire Health Authority, ex parte Fisher [1997] 8 Med L.R. 327.
10. Supra n. 1 at 408.
11. At [73].
12. See ss. 1 and 97 National Health Service Act 1977.
13. At [77].
14. [2006] E.W.H.C. 2462, considered below.
15. At [41].
16. NICE, Fertility: Assessment and treatment for people with fertility problems (NICE 2004). Although, as a 'guideline' (rather then Technology Appraisal Guidance), it is not binding upon PCTs, few PCTs have resisted pressure from the centre to make some such service available to patients.
17. See R. v. Sheffield Health Authority, ex parte Seale (1995) 25 B.M.L.R. 1
18. and A. Plomer, I. Smith and N. Martin-Clement, 'Rationing Policies and Access to In Vitro Fertilisation in the National Health Service' (1999) 14 Reproductive Health Matters 60.
19. See N. Duxbury, Random Justice: On Lotteries in Legal Decision-Making (Oxford Unversity Press 1999).
20. [2006] E.W.H.C. 2462 (Admin).
21. See R. v. N. W. Lancashire Health Authority, ex parte A, D & G, supra n. 1.
22. At [43].
23. At [44].
24. [1995] 2 All E.R. 129.
25. See R. v. N. W. Lancashire Health Authority, ex parte A, D & G, supra n. 1.
26. See e. g. R. v. Central Birmingham Health Authority, ex parte Collier (unreported, 1988).
27. [2001] E.W.H.C. 535.
28. At [80].
29. R (Watts) v. Bedford Primary Care Trust and the Secretary of State Case C-372/04.
30. See C. Newdick, 'Citizenship, Free Movement and Health Care: Cementing Individual Rights by Corroding Social Solidarity' (2006) 43 C.M.L.R. 1645.
31. See ZT v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] E.W.C.A. Civ 1421,
32. N v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2005) 84 B.M.L.R. 126,
33. Bensaid v. United Kingdom (2001) 33 E.H.R.R. 205.
34. But see also the exceptional case of D v. United Kingdom (1997) 42 B.M.L.R. 149.