Professor Hooper responds: References: 1) UK LAW -ME/CFS is Physical.... by Professor Malcolm Hooper Help ME Circle, 2 March 2014 2) ME -this is Against or Outside the Law by Greg Crowhurst Help ME Circle, 8 March 2014 3) Turning the Page (and the Smith): checking the facts – and why we need to broaden the debate by Valerie Eliot Smith - bit.ly/1itmLsc ~jvr ```` Note from Professor Malcolm Hooper re: comments on his article about Page v Smith Professor Hooper notes Miss Eliot Smith’s comments on her blog about his article “ME/CFS is an organic disorder” and would make the following observations: 1. Before her blog post, Miss Eliot Smith emailed the website owner requesting that he withdraw the article but she originally provided no reasons to substantiate her claim that its central premise is incorrect; such an unpersuasive approach would seem to be in contrast to her call for the need to develop “our ability to disagree with each other more constructively 2. The original judgment of Mr Justice Otton commented on the nature/status of ME and unequivocally found that there is a condition, disease or illness called ME and referred to it as a medical disorder 3. The finding that there is a condition, disease or illness called ME and that it is a medical disorder does not apply only to the Page v Smith case 4. The judgment of Mr Justice Otton was ratified by no less a person than The Master of the Rolls, fully supported by Lord Justice Morrit and Lord Justice Auld. They found that the judgment of Mr Justice Otton was “unassailable”. That judgment was unanimously in favour of Mr Page and can be cited by future litigants 5. The Page v Smith case is part of the common law of England and Wales 6. Miss Eliot Smith asserts that the comments of their Lordships were not legally binding, nor were they medically significant; however she fails to cite any English case law that has superseded the judgment of The Master of The Rolls 7. An article in a law journal expressing a contrary opinion to their Lordships’ does not serve to undermine the status of the Page v Smith judgment, so it is surprising that a (self-admittedly non-practising) barrister attempts to give it equal weight to a judicial determination 8. Furthermore, Miss Eliot Smith says she has not read all the judgments before forming her opinion, whereas Professor Hooper’s article was based on full copies of all the approved judgments in Page v Smith 9. Until it has been tested in court, what Miss Eliot Smith states in a blog post remains her opinion only.
Posted on: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:38:48 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015