This search includes all content on the Scottish Parliament website, except for Votes and Motions. All Official Reports (what has been said in Parliament) and Questions and Answers are available from 1999. You can refine your search by adding and removing filters.
The Law Society of Scotland raised concerns about compelling a health professional to explain all the treatment options. It understands that Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board (2015) found that a doctor does not have to discuss a treatment option which is, in their opinion, inappropriate.
In correspondence with the Scottish Government, the Committee queried whether the wording of regulation 3(2)(a)(v) is sufficiently clear to the reader of the instrument.
This approach in was followed in Bain v Bain 2008 Fam LR 81. The formulation of the test in Banks was approved by the Second Division in the Inner House of the Court of Session in S v S 2015 SC 513.
The Netherlands: Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands ruled that the Dutch government violated its duty of care to its citizens with failing to take adequate action in addressing climate change.
However, the Committee agreed to delay consideration of a draft report in light of the issuing of the Supreme Court's judgment in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers on 16 April 2025.
Also in 2015, the Inner House of the Court of Session had to consider this issue in Christian Institute v Lord Advocate.2The Christian Institute and others v Lord Advocate, at para 37; [2015] CSIH 64 2016 S.C. 47; 2015 S.L.T. 633; [2015] 9 WLUK 58; 2015 Fam.
The MHRA first received reports of potential problems with PIP implants in 20023Martindale, V., & Menache, A. (2013). The PIP scandal: an analysis of the process of quality control that failed to safeguard women from the health risks.