ABSTRACT
The common law relating to information disclosure is largely founded on cases about a poor neurological outcome. This support needs to be paid for, and it is for this reason, that obstetric and neurosurgical cases are brought to court. A recent case concerned a young man called Sebastian Webster. He suffered perinatal ischaemia, and has cerebral palsy, entailing profound physical and cognitive impairment. The High Court found that this evidence was based on an ‘extremely small’ statistical base, which would not at that stage have been reflected in official or academic guidance about the timing of delivery. The court also found that there was a body of reasonable obstetricians who would not, on the basis of the emerging evidence, have been deflected from their normal practice of awaiting a natural delivery. The disclosure of this ‘new’ risk can be tempered by the acknowledgment that the evidence base is sparse, along the lines suggested by the court.
