IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v29y2021i3p547-561..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Correia, Diamond and the Chester Exception: Vindicating Patient Autonomy?

Author

Listed:
  • Louise Austin

Abstract

In Chester v Afshar [2004], the House of Lords stated they were departing from the traditional rules of causation in order to vindicate the patient’s right of autonomy. Subsequent judgments in the Court of Appeal expressed concerns over the lack of clarity of the legal principles to be derived from that judgment. In Correia v University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust [2017] and Diamond v Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust [2019], however, the Court of Appeal sought to clarify the scope and limits of Chester. This commentary sets out the scope and limits of Chester in light of those judgments and considers the extent to which they can be said to be vindicating patient autonomy. Drawing upon Coggon’s typology of autonomy, it concludes that future judgments should utilise that typology to explicate which understanding of autonomy they are seeking to protect.

Suggested Citation

  • Louise Austin, 2021. "Correia, Diamond and the Chester Exception: Vindicating Patient Autonomy?," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(3), pages 547-561.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:29:y:2021:i:3:p:547-561.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwab016
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:29:y:2021:i:3:p:547-561.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/medlaw .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.