Saturday, 17 January 2009

Mooting Third Round

So I have made it through two rounds so far of my university's internal mooting competition.
Not so great considering other people's achievements, but also not that great as I was in the same position in my first year. The top 16 mooters go through this round to the quarter finals, slightly daunting as I have yet to be up against someone who is really good; people in the first round and second rounds were the light hearted people who thought "lets give it a go" rather than some of the dedicated third years who spend about 3 weeks preparing for a moot. Conversations with other people taking part in the moot also mentioned the lack of "really good people" so I gather this round will be a tough one as most of the weaker competition has been sifted out.

The moot problem I am currently facing falls square into a medical law and ethics topic, which I study and suprisingly the course leader writes the moot problem questions. For some reason I am finding it extremly hard to come up with anything for the negative of the certified question "is a doctor or surgeon under a duty of care to inform the patient of signficant factors relating to that individual doctor or surgeon?"

I have no clue who the other people I am mooting against are, but I do know that I have a judge who is scholary in the field of Tort Law.

If I even manage to complete my skeleton before 12pm on Tuesday I will be wonderfully surprised. That and the third year is demanding a lot from me, with mooting, the LAC, and now I have involved myself in a Pro Bono Unit Human Rights thingy, all so I can boolster my dreadful CV.

In addition I also think I should start charging at least £5 for my Doging Fare Evasion guide, firstly because it makes up the majority of my readership, and secondly because I want money!!

7 comments:

Android said...

Hey, good luck!!

The moot question sounds.. strange. But I'm sure that after all the research, you'll come up with some genius arguments to conquer your opponents and impress the judge!

Law Minx said...

I agree with Andro, it is a bit of a strange mooting question, because the other side have a whole Host of failure to inform cases at their beck and call; have you looked at the dissenters in those judgements ( if any ) in order to see what they think?
Of course, Bolam could be wheeled out , the facts of the case bieng horrific, and the resulting test arguably in that circumstance an acquiesence of the court to medicine.

Thats the trouble with mooting - it just keeps getting bloody tougher, but since I have no doubt that you are now more than capable of selling snow to the Eskimos and sand to the Arabs on the back of past victories, I am quite sure that you will prevail!

Lost said...

1. I think i am going to currently argue that doctors have a general duty in "broad terms" according to Chatterson v Garrett, to inform patients of the procedure.. and obviously any significant risk of the procedure itself following Chester v Afshar

But not to provide information about themselves, therapeutic privilege can be used here I recon, then going on to say how much of a burden and waste of NHS resources it would be to provide this kind of discloure to every patient.

Then perhaps go through Sidaway..

I am trying to stick clear of Bolam and Bolitho as they come up as the second ground in the moot, which my partner is doing!!

The real issue is; whether a doctor is under a duty to disclose all of his past/previous successes/failures to every patient he treats - my answer shall be met with a resounding no.. for the above reasons..
what ya think?

Mooting is won not on the law in my moots but style/presentation/content/dealing with judicial intervention.. all of which I have got better at.. just hopefully it is better than two other people in my moot, because only two people are going through to the next round!! ah!!

Law Minx said...

You seem to have a cracking argument, there Lost - and wise of you not to go with bolam if its part of the second ground.

Could you not also slip in the point that very many doctors have absolutely appalling - and published - mortality and morbidity rates, which could, prima facie, be viewed to be the result of negligent conduct ( i.e he must be a very slipshod sort of a doctor if all these people die in his care') but are in fact part and parcel of the high risk work they do with very 'high risk' patients? This might be a good point if the other side reveal/argue the Bristol Heart Scandal. A useful piece was trotted out some time ago in the Independant with respect to the conduct of Cardiac Surgeons:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/death-rates-of-heart-surgeons-revealed-545825.html

Just a thought! :)

Lost said...

Thank Minxy, the moot problem question is on AAA surgery something that Phil Hammond(either the whistle blower or the revealer of the Bristol Inquiry) has written about, though googles have provided not a lot of stuff to go on but very interesting none the less!!

Anonymous said...

Best of luck with the moot. If you're arguing at the House of Lords, policy argument will always strengthen your arguments, shows how creative you can be in court!

Getting to the top 16 is an achievement in itself.

The Uni Looney said...

Good with the moot and business venture. I can see it doing well in this economic climate...more of my friends are not paying train fares and getting away with it. Due to their James/Jane bond abilities.

It might thought becuase were poor students.