Legal landmark?

Reported to-day is the £5million pound outcome of a ruling hailed as one of the most important on negligence for decades - but is it? What seems surprising is that the claim had been twice rejected in Scotland. Apparently in 1999 a 40 year old type1 diabetic mother had complications during PV delivery leading to severe brain damage in her son. The problem seems to have been shoulder dystocia which may be difficult to predict but increased birth weight and diabetes are factors  It seems the obstetrician chose not to discuss this potential complication and to see if the mother would opt for a CS (which she says she would have done). kirked may know more details but it seems surprising that the mother did not take ask about a CS - not legally but rationally one would expect a type 1 diabetic mother to know that pregnancy might be more complicated than in the none diabetic and to have asked a few questions... The ignorance of patients about their chronic disorders used to irritate me at times but one has to assume ignorance until there is reason to believe otherwise. Should pregnancy risks and options have been discussed by those looking after her diabetes ? Or was she of such a disposition that the consultant wished to protect her from worries? The medical director of the health authority concerned commented that it was understood that this case materially changes the law relating to consent , but surely there has been for more than 20 years an obligation to discuss...
Source: Doc2Doc BMJ Cardiology - Category: Cardiology Authors: Source Type: forums