File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Autonomy, Affinity, And The Assessment Of Damages: Acb V Thomson Medical Pte Ltd [2017] Sgca 20 And Shaw V Kovak [2017] Ewca Civ 1028

TitleAutonomy, Affinity, And The Assessment Of Damages: Acb V Thomson Medical Pte Ltd [2017] Sgca 20 And Shaw V Kovak [2017] Ewca Civ 1028
Authors
Keywordsautonomy
Damages
Genetic affinity
Negligence
Wrongful fertilisation
Issue Date2018
Citation
Medical Law Review, 2018, v. 26, n. 4, p. 675-692 How to Cite?
AbstractIn ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd [2017] SGCA 20 and Shaw v Kovak [2017] EWCA Civ 1028, the idea that 'lost autonomy' should be recognised as a new form of actionable damage in the tort of negligence was rejected in Singapore and England, respectively. This, it will be argued, was the correct outcome. Protecting an interest in autonomy via the tort of negligence would undermine the coherence of that tort. In ACB, however, a new, different, form of damage was recognised: loss of 'genetic affinity'. This commentary will discuss some problems that protecting an interest in 'genetic affinity' raises before critiquing the approach to assessing damages in ACB.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/344485
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 1.8
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.545

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPurshouse, Craig-
dc.date.accessioned2024-07-31T03:03:46Z-
dc.date.available2024-07-31T03:03:46Z-
dc.date.issued2018-
dc.identifier.citationMedical Law Review, 2018, v. 26, n. 4, p. 675-692-
dc.identifier.issn0967-0742-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/344485-
dc.description.abstractIn ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd [2017] SGCA 20 and Shaw v Kovak [2017] EWCA Civ 1028, the idea that 'lost autonomy' should be recognised as a new form of actionable damage in the tort of negligence was rejected in Singapore and England, respectively. This, it will be argued, was the correct outcome. Protecting an interest in autonomy via the tort of negligence would undermine the coherence of that tort. In ACB, however, a new, different, form of damage was recognised: loss of 'genetic affinity'. This commentary will discuss some problems that protecting an interest in 'genetic affinity' raises before critiquing the approach to assessing damages in ACB.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofMedical Law Review-
dc.subjectautonomy-
dc.subjectDamages-
dc.subjectGenetic affinity-
dc.subjectNegligence-
dc.subjectWrongful fertilisation-
dc.titleAutonomy, Affinity, And The Assessment Of Damages: Acb V Thomson Medical Pte Ltd [2017] Sgca 20 And Shaw V Kovak [2017] Ewca Civ 1028-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/medlaw/fwx056-
dc.identifier.pmid29161410-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85057122541-
dc.identifier.volume26-
dc.identifier.issue4-
dc.identifier.spage675-
dc.identifier.epage692-
dc.identifier.eissn1464-3790-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats