ABSTRACT
A familiar refrain of the law on negligently caused psychiatric harm is that more attention should be paid to advances in medicine. The legal construct of 'pure' psychiatric harm defies understanding of the physical processes associated with mental activity, and legal principles pay scant attention to the causes of psychiatric illness. A confusing, somewhat patronising, label, 'nervous shock' unhelpfully blurred the distinction between the nature of the condition described and its cause. The parents sued the Authority for psychiatric illness stemming from guilt feelings about being unwitting agents of the abuse. Acute emotional responses are normally transient and of little, if any, medical or legal consequence by comparison with delayed prolonged or cumulative emotional impact. The causes of mental harm following an instantaneous rail or car crash are often more readily established than, say, the more complex relationship between caring over time for a negligently injured close relative and gradually emerging depression.
