Like most developed nations, Singapore has a gradually aging population. The proliferation of this new demographic profile raises a host of pressing issues, particularly that of rising incidences of dementia among the aged. Given that many of those who might suffer from dementia will have accumulated considerable assets and are therefore at risk of being the victims of fraud, there is thus a need for legislation that adequately protects this vulnerable group of persons.
The Demise of Bolam/Bolitho: Towards Patient Centricity
The recent Court of Appeal decision in Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien (“Hii Chii Kok”) has been a long time coming. Affirming the demise of the antiquated Bolam-Bolitho test in relation to pre-treatment advice, this decision also adds Singapore to a growing list of countries which have embraced the concept of patient autonomy. This paper will briefly describe the court decisions, before proceeding to an analysis of both the Bolam-Bolitho test, and the new legal test propounded by the Court of Appeal.
Taming Horses in the Wild, Wild West: Patel v Mirza
The interplay between law and policy has long been a bone of contention in the courts, underpinned by the famous declaration that public policy is an “unruly horse” – once you are astride it, it may lead you astray from the sound law. This could be said to be particularly pertinent to the defence of illegality – where a person claiming restitution has premised his case upon an illegality, public policy has traditionally dictated that his claim be barred (the “illegality defence”, or “defence of ex turpi causa”).