File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1093/medlaw/fwx056
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85057122541
- PMID: 29161410
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
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
Title | Autonomy, Affinity, And The Assessment Of Damages: Acb V Thomson Medical Pte Ltd [2017] Sgca 20 And Shaw V Kovak [2017] Ewca Civ 1028 |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | autonomy Damages Genetic affinity Negligence Wrongful fertilisation |
Issue Date | 2018 |
Citation | Medical Law Review, 2018, v. 26, n. 4, p. 675-692 How to Cite? |
Abstract | In 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 Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/344485 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 1.8 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.545 |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Purshouse, Craig | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-07-31T03:03:46Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2024-07-31T03:03:46Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2018 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Medical Law Review, 2018, v. 26, n. 4, p. 675-692 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0967-0742 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/344485 | - |
dc.description.abstract | In 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.language | eng | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Medical Law Review | - |
dc.subject | autonomy | - |
dc.subject | Damages | - |
dc.subject | Genetic affinity | - |
dc.subject | Negligence | - |
dc.subject | Wrongful fertilisation | - |
dc.title | Autonomy, Affinity, And The Assessment Of Damages: Acb V Thomson Medical Pte Ltd [2017] Sgca 20 And Shaw V Kovak [2017] Ewca Civ 1028 | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1093/medlaw/fwx056 | - |
dc.identifier.pmid | 29161410 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85057122541 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 26 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 4 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 675 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 692 | - |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1464-3790 | - |