Update: This is a Comment Made by DrK. As many of you don’t read comments I thought I would post this.
“Much of what the barrister said should worry neurologists who feel they can stick to the old days, being highly selective in what they tell pwMS, or simply wait and see”.
Firstly, in civil cases, it does not have to be demonstrated that *not* prescribing DMT *has led* (without doubt) to deterioration in the individual (the smoking gun concept). What needs to be shown is that – on the balance of probabilities – waiting and seeing has materially contributed *to the risk of deterioration*.
Secondly, this is very much about the duty of care and offering choice that *provided a pwMS fulfils the criteria* for DMT, options *have* to be discussed. Many colleagues may not be aware of the crystal clear implication of this paragraph in the NHS constitution.
Remember. Ignorance of the Rules means you loose.