A MOTHER is suing a health board for £100,000 after claiming it failed to alert her that her pregnancy could result in a child suffering from a serious genetic disease.
The woman's son was born with cystic fibrosis although she was told that a test for the condition had proved negative.
The 41-year-old is now seeking damages from Lothian Health Board in an action at the Court of Session in Edinburgh claiming that
she suffered negligence in her ante-natal care.
A judge rejected a move by the health authority to have the case against it dismissed at a procedural hearing and allowed it to go ahead to a hearing of evidence.
The health board argued it was not responsible for the scientists who
carried out the screening test which was part of a research study by the human genetics unit at Edinburgh University.
The woman, known as JS in a judgement issued today, had attended at the Eastern General Hospital, in Edinburgh, in 1994 after getting pregnant and was sent a leaflet on testing for cystic fibrosis.
Lady Stacey said: "The matter is plainly very important as it is noted in the leaflet that a positive test may, after further testing, result in the patient being offered a termination."
She said: "It would in my opinion be open to the patient to think that the hospital, in offering a test, was offering to analyse any samples given."
The judge said it was apparent that other expectant mothers in Edinburgh were offered the same test and did have the analysis carried out by an employee of the health authority.
"Thus there may be circumstances both relating subjectively to the pursuer's perception and objectively to the whole circumstances which affect the question of whether the health board have assumed responsibility and whether it would be fair, just and reasonable to fix them with a duty," she said.
Lady Stacey said she took the view that a hearing of evidence was necessary to decide on any scope of duty owed by the authority to the mother.
The leaflet sent to the woman stated that the test can identify 85 per cent of cystic fibrosis carriers.
She provided a sample which was sent to the Western General Hospital, in Edinburgh, for testing and she was told it had proved negative.
But she claims that it showed the appearance of a faint positive result, although it was a poor quality sample and testing of a repeat sample should have been carried out.
The mother claims that her loss, injury and damage was caused or contributed to by the fault of scientists who examined the saliva sample and maintains they failed to show the standard of care required.
The health board, which contests the action, admits the result of the laboratory test was reported to her as negative.
But it maintains it is not responsible for actions or omissions of the scientists as it did not employ them.
It said the screening was not funded by the health authorities and it was carried out by Edinburgh University employee Richard Axton.
