{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022167487684729065, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011494252873563218, 'mean_word_length': 4.946341463414634, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
AB v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust.


 Court Decision: [2004] 2 Family Law Reports 365; 2004 Mar 26 (date of decision). The Queen's Bench Division held that the practice of not warning parents of the possibility of post-mortem removal and retention of organs from their children violated the duty health care providers owed to the parents. Parents of three children, a premature baby, a stillborn infant, and a two year old toddler, brought suit against the hospital after the hospital removed and retained organs from their deceased children pursuant to proficiently performed post-mortems. The parents, upon discovery of this fact many years later, complained that the hospital had improperly retained possession of the organs and also had failed to inform them of this possibility. Although the court held that the parents had no possessory interest in the organs, which were removed and retained by the hospital pursuant to the standard post-mortem procedure, the court also found informed consent to be defective. The hospital's choice to omit the possibility of organ removal and retention from the parents' informed consent forms was motivated by paternalistic concern and violated its duty to the parents.
