PRESS RELEASES | APR 30, 2026

Introduction to HKU Law Series (XI) Professor Craig Purshouse

Craig Purshouse is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Law, the Deputy Director of the Centre for Private Law and the Deputy Director of the Centre for Medical Ethics and Law at The University of Hong Kong. Professor Purshouse’s research interests are in the law of torts and medical law, with a particular focus on the area where they overlap: medical negligence. He has published widely on his research interests in a range of leading generalist and specialist law journals and loves teaching these subjects.

Self-Introduction

My name is Craig Purshouse and I’m an Associate Professor here in the Faculty of Law. I’m originally from the UK, where I studied law as an undergraduate at the University of Sheffield. I then completed a master’s degree in healthcare ethics and law at the University of Manchester, where I also did my PhD. Before joining HKU, I was a senior lecturer in law at the University of Liverpool, having worked in full-time academic roles in the UK for almost 10 years. My research interests are in tort law and medical law, so often medical negligence. I’ve published on a number of topics within these subjects—most recently on claims for pre-natal injuries and wrongful life.

What motivated your move from the UK to HKU, and how has this transition shaped your work so far? 

I’d always lived in the UK so I was ready for a change of experience. I really loved Hong Kong when I visited the city in 2018. HKU has a great reputation, both for world-leading academics and for excellent students. It also has key strengths, both in medical law and in private law. So all of that combined made the job very attractive.

The transition has already shaped my work. When I was in the UK, I was very interested in examining tort law across much of the common law world, rather than just English law. Moving to Hong Kong has meant I’ve internationalized my research much more, not just with the law in Hong Kong but other common law jurisdictions such as Singapore, Australia and Canada. A focus of my work is how these questions I am answering have been dealt with across these common law jurisdictions. So I think this was a great move for me and I’m very happy here at HKU.

Reflecting on your time at Sheffield and Manchester, what mentors or experiences led you to specialize in medical law and torts?

A number of things led me to specialize in medical law and tort. A key one was that I had some experience of medical negligence when I was a teenager. So that made me very interested in these issues around medical negligence and the balance between the rights of patients and the interests of doctors.

I’ve had so many mentors at Sheffield and Manchester that I’d be worried about missing someone if I started naming them all. Obviously, those who taught me torts and medical law as an undergraduate—including personal tutors and dissertation supervisors—were influential.

Having worked in both systems, how do legal education and student expectations in the UK compare with those at HKU?

Any two universities will do things differently, but there is often a remarkable number of similarities between legal education in Hong Kong and in the UK. I think a key difference is that HKU offers more double degrees and common courses, which give it some similarities with liberal arts degrees in the United States, whereas UK legal education tends to mainly just focus on the law. In terms of student expectations, they are very similar. But if I were to generalize, I would say that students in Hong Kong are very ambitious and very hard-working. So that makes it very refreshing to teach people who are excited about the subject.

What advice would you give to students wishing to pursue research in medical law and torts?

I would say to students: work hard in your studies. A higher GPA will open a lot of doors. If you are interested in researching medical law and torts, it’s a good idea to undertake a dissertation or a guided research project in this subject, as this will give you some practice of legal writing to a higher level. I also think it’s good to start publishing early. A case commentary or a book review is a good idea if you are just starting out, to get used to academic publishing.

Furthermore, once you actually get started with legal writing, it is a good idea to send your work to several people to get feedback before sending it out for publication. They might spot errors which would otherwise cause it to be rejected by a peer reviewer. Also make sure to carefully target a journal, and make sure your piece is a good fit and you are following the guidance that they suggest. If they only accept papers of 10,000 words, do not submit something of 15,000 words, as it will immediately get rejected. So think carefully about where you are publishing your work.

What are the primary projects or questions you are currently addressing at the Centre for Private Law and the Centre for Medical Ethics and Law?

My current research is on claims for psychiatric injuries in the tort of negligence. Where somebody suffers a psychiatric injury as a result of witnessing another person being killed, injured or endangered, courts have placed a number of restrictions on this type of claim, and this has often been criticized by academics. What has tended to happen is that the courts have introduced restrictions, academics have criticized them. Then when the next case comes, the courts have chosen to keep those restrictions, and the academics then criticize this. The debate seems to go around in circles. My new research is aiming to move past these debates by questioning whether these rules actually have a principled basis or not. I have written one piece on this issue and am hoping to expand it into a larger project. It fits within the work of the Centre for Private Law, given that it concerns tort law, and also within the Centre for Medical Ethics and Law, given the medical issues surrounding mental health.

Do you believe the core ideas of health law translate effectively across different legal and cultural settings?

I would say that they do. Health is of fundamental importance to everyone on earth, and the core values of medical law – patient autonomy, confidentiality, avoiding harming people, and improving people’s health – are important everywhere in the world. However, the application of these values does differ across different parts of the world. The balance struck between them may vary, and law is always local, so its application within different legal systems is often quite different.

Here in Hong Kong, for example, there is a greater use of traditional Chinese medicine than in the West, which means that a significant number of cases here involve this type of medicine, whereas in the West the majority of cases concern orthodox medicine. Different cultural values may also come into play. For instance, Confucianism may mean that situations in which children disagree with parents and doctors over medical treatment are less likely to result in litigation in a society that follows Confucianist principles than in one that places a stronger emphasis on individual autonomy.

That said, I would caution against any reductive binaries on this point. In the classroom here in Hong Kong, there is a wide variety of student views on any issue we cover. So while there are different local applications and different emphases placed on particular values, I would agree that the core values themselves are broadly shared across the world.

What recent trends in medical law and torts do you find particularly exciting or concerning?

I am always most excited about whatever I am researching at the time. At the moment, I am very interested in issues relating to psychiatric injuries and mental health, and also reproductive negligence. On the question of trends, sometimes I have researched on topics that might be seen as trendy. I did research on surrogacy and conversion therapy, for instance, at a time when both were subjects of law reform in the UK. However, academic research takes a long time to complete. If one always follows the trend, by the time you’ve written a piece and it has gone through the peer review process, the topic may no longer be trendy anymore. I do try to keep track of the trends, but I mainly research on what I am most interested in.

Given the rise of AI-assisted medicine and new reproductive technologies, which emerging ethical issues is the law currently least prepared for?

On the issue of AI, I think it poses very significant challenges. There are concerns about regulatory capture by AI companies. While it could have enormously beneficial consequences, there is also potential for harm. However, within my specific research area, tort law, I think the discipline is quite well equipped to deal with the challenges AI presents. This is because tort law is inherently flexible and evolves over time. While AI does pose great challenges, it is worth remembering that AI is considered part of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and tort law has managed to handle the three previous industrial revolutions quite well. I therefore think that while there will be amendments to tort law in response to AI, many of its broad underlying principles, such as the key one – one should not carelessly cause injury to other people, will still be salient.

You have recently published articles on negligence liability for wrongful life. Why is this area controversial?

Prenatal injuries are best illustrated with an example. There was a drug called thalidomide which caused birth defects when taken by pregnant women. The children of women who had taken this drug would be born with quite serious disabilities. If such a child were to bring a claim, that would be a case of prenatal injury: the child would have been born healthy but was instead born with a disability caused by the drug.

Wrongful life cases are slightly different. In a wrongful life case, consider the following example. A woman is pregnant and has contracted a disease such as rubella, which can also cause birth defects. Contracting rubella is nobody’s fault, so there is no negligence at that stage. She then goes to a doctor, who tells her she does not have the disease. The mother gives birth to the child and the child is born with disabilities as a result. However, had the doctor told her she had rubella, she would have had an abortion, and the child would not have existed at all. This makes the wrongful life claim quite different from the thalidomide case.

In the thalidomide case, the child would have been born healthy but was born with a disability due to somebody’s negligence. In the wrongful life case, the child would either be born with the disability through no one’s fault, or, if the doctor had not acted negligently, the pregnancy would have been terminated and the child would never have existed. These are quite controversial claims because the child is therefore essentially arguing that they should not have been born, or that they should not exist. The difficulty with the wrongful life case is whether existence itself can be considered a form of damage or harm.

In my research, I looked at the legislation governing this area, which is the same in England as it is in Hong Kong, and I found a number of significant inconsistencies. Whatever one’s view on whether such claims should be permitted, the current legislation ends up satisfying nobody, because it is so inconsistent. I therefore argued for ways in which this legislation might be amended in order to arrive at a more principled and coherent approach.

Recent social debates surrounding euthanasia and the “right to die” have re-emerged. What role do you think courts, legislators, and medical institutions should play in shaping the future framework for end-of-life care?

This is a very controversial question across the world. First, we have to understand what we mean by a right to die or euthanasia, because these can sometimes be vague terms. Some people might mean by a right to die the right to refuse medical treatment, while others might mean someone taking active steps to help another person die, which involves the participation of another person. Similarly with euthanasia: sometimes people are referring to voluntary euthanasia, where somebody is choosing to end their own life, and sometimes they are referring to ending somebody’s life where that person has not necessarily consented, in order to end their suffering. So it is already controversial simply to agree on what these terms mean.

There is then a second controversial question: should we allow these practices? This is often ethically contentious because we have to balance a person’s right to decide how they live or end their life against the importance of reducing suffering, while also protecting vulnerable people. It is also worth noting that suicide has an impact beyond the individual – it affects family members as well. These are all complex factors to take into account.

There is then a further question of whether this is best left to the courts or to the legislature, which raises a political and constitutional dimension. This is a topic I love to debate in the classroom, where a wide variety of views tends to emerge. I find the differences in views across jurisdictions particularly interesting. Both in the UK and here in Hong Kong, where we have many students from the mainland in the classroom, there is a huge diverse range of views. It is not a question I have a definitive answer to, but those would be the key factors I think any serious engagement with the issue needs to take into account.

How do you see legal education evolving over the next decade? (Question from the previous interviewee)

This is a difficult question to answer. There is a phrase: “Man makes plans and God laughs.” Trying to predict the future can therefore be quite foolish. That said, I do think AI will have a part to play in legal education in the future. It does provide some benefits, but there are also a lot of costs. We have to make sure that the work submitted is the student’s own, and that students have the ability both to use AI effectively and to answer legal questions and analyze problems without relying on it. No client will want to hire a solicitor or barrister who has to consult ChatGPT for every question they ask. We therefore need to ensure that students are developing their analytical skills and are able to read complex judgments without assistance. This will be a key challenge for legal education in the future, alongside ensuring that examinations reflect the student’s own work rather than that of AI.

Legal education is often influenced by developments in the legal profession, and changes in practice tend to filter through to education in due course, which makes it difficult to predict with any confidence what the future might hold. Those, however, would be my tentative thoughts on the matter.

I do hope that there will still be a place for the traditional lecture and tutorial format. They have lasted for centuries, and I think they will continue to have a place in the future.

What would be your question for the next Introduction to HKU Law interviewee?

Do you have a writing routine when you conduct your research?

Could you recommend three books and films to our readers?

I read a lot of history books. Back in the UK, I would be reading about the Wars of the Roses and the Tudors, and more recently I’ve been reading books about Chinese history. For novels, I am going to recommend three: Kazuo Ishiguro’s The Remains of the Day, Margaret Atwood’s Cat’s Eye, and The Bone Clocks by David Mitchell.

As for films, I go to the cinema quite a lot, so choosing only three is difficult. I am going to go with: Working Girl, Blue Velvet, and a Chinese film I saw recently called Farewell My Concubine.

END.

Craig Purshouse是香港大學法律學院副教授、私法研究中心（Centre for Private Law）副總監以及醫學倫理與法律研究中心（Centre for Medical Ethics and Law）副總監。Purshouse教授的研究興趣集中於侵權法與醫療法，尤其關注兩者交匯的醫療疏忽領域。他在諸多權威綜合性及專業法律期刊上發表了大量研究成果，並熱愛教授相關課程。

自我介紹

我叫Craig Purshouse，是香港大學法律學院的副教授。我來自英國，本科就讀於謝菲爾德大學法律系，隨後在曼徹斯特大學取得醫療倫理與法律碩士學位，並在該校完成博士學業。加入香港大學之前，我曾擔任利物浦大學法律系高級講師，在英國全職從事學術工作近十年。我的研究興趣在於侵權法與醫療法，尤其是醫療疏忽領域。我已就上述課題發表多篇論著，最近的研究集中於產前傷害索賠與”不當出生”訴訟。

是什麼促使您從英國來到香港大學？這一轉變迄今如何影響您的工作？

我之前一直生活在英國，所以很渴望體驗不同的生活。2018年到訪香港時，我就深深愛上了這座城市。香港大學在學術水平和學生素質方面都享有盛譽，同時在醫療法與私法領域也實力雄厚。所有這些因素加在一起，使這份工作對我極具吸引力。

這一轉變已經對我的工作產生了影響。在英國時，我更感興趣的是研究普通法系國家（而不僅僅是英國）的侵權法。來到香港後，我的研究更加國際化，不僅涵蓋香港法律，還包括新加坡、澳大利亞和加拿大等其他普通法系國家的法律。我的研究重點之一是探討我所關注的問題在這些普通法系中是如何被處理的。因此，我認為搬到香港是一個非常正確的選擇，我在香港大學工作得十分愉快。

回顧您在謝菲爾德和曼徹斯特的求學經歷，是哪些導師或經歷促使您最終選擇專攻醫療法和侵權法？

促使我選擇專攻醫療法和侵權法的原因有很多。其中一個關鍵因素是我在青少年時期曾有過與醫療疏忽相關的親身經歷，這讓我對醫療疏忽以及患者權利與醫生利益之間的平衡問題產生了濃厚的興趣。

我在謝菲爾德大學和曼徹斯特大學得到了很多導師的幫助，若要一一列舉，恐怕會有所遺漏。毫無疑問，那些在本科階段教授我侵權法與醫療法的老師——包括個人導師和論文指導教師——對我產生了深遠影響。

您在英國和香港兩個教育體系中均有執教經歷，您如何比較英國與香港大學的法律教育，以及兩地對學生的期望？

任何兩所大學都會有不同的辦學方式，但香港與英國的法律教育之間往往存在相當多的相似之處。我認為一個關鍵區別在於，香港大學提供更多雙學位和通識課程，這使其在某種程度上類似於美國本科的博雅教育，而英國的法律教育則往往更側重於法律本身。就學生期望而言，兩者其實非常相似。不過如果要做一個概括，我會說香港的學生通常非常有抱負且勤奮努力。因此，能夠教授這樣一群對學科充滿熱情的學生，是一件令人耳目一新的事情。

您對希望從事醫療法與侵權法研究的學生有何建議？

我想對學生說：首先要在學業上刻苦努力。較高的績點會為你打開很多機會之門。如果你對醫療法和侵權法研究感興趣，撰寫畢業論文或參與導師指導的研究項目是一個好主意，這將幫助你練習更高水平的法律寫作。此外，我認為儘早開始發表學術成果是一個不錯的起點。如果你剛入門，可以從案例評註或書評寫起，以熟悉學術發表的基本流程。

進一步來說，當你真正開始進行法律寫作時，在投稿之前最好將作品發送給多人徵求意見。他們可能會發現一些問題，而這些問題如果未被察覺，可能會導致稿件在同行評審階段被拒絕。同時，要仔細選擇投稿的期刊，確保你的文章與該期刊的定位契合，並嚴格遵循其投稿指南。例如，如果某期刊只接受一萬字以內的文章，就不要提交一萬五千字的稿件，否則很可能會被直接拒稿。因此，在選擇發表渠道時務必要謹慎考慮。

您目前在私法研究中心和醫學倫理與法律研究中心主要從事哪些項目或研究課題？

我目前的研究聚焦於過失侵權中的精神損害（psychiatric injury）索賠。當某人因目睹他人被殺害、受傷或處於危險中而遭受精神損害時，法院對此類索賠設置了若干限制，這在學界引發了廣泛批評。通常的情形是：法院設置限制，學者予以批評；下一個案件出現時，法院選擇維持原有限制，學者再次提出批評，如此循環往復。我的新研究旨在超越這些爭論，探究這些規則本身究竟是否具有合理的原則基礎。我已經就這一問題撰寫過一篇論文，並希望將其擴展為一個更大的研究項目。該研究既屬於私法研究中心的範疇（因為涉及侵權法），也屬於醫學倫理與法律研究中心的範疇（因為涉及精神健康相關的醫學問題）。

您認為醫療法的核心理念能否有效跨越不同的法律與文化背景？

我認為可以。健康對於地球上每一個人都至關重要，醫療法的核心價值——患者自主權、保密原則、避免傷害以及促進健康——在全世界都具有重要意義。然而，這些價值的適用方式在世界各地確實存在差異。不同地區對這些價值的權衡取捨有所不同，且法律始終具有地方性，因此在不同法律體系中的適用往往差異顯著。

以香港為例，與西方相比，這裏更廣泛地使用中醫，這意味着香港有大量案例涉及此類醫療方式，而西方的案例則大多涉及主流西醫（orthodox medicine）。不同的文化價值觀也可能發揮作用。例如，儒家思想或許意味着，在一個遵循儒家原則的社會中，子女就醫療問題與父母及醫生產生分歧而訴諸法律的情形，比一個更強調個人自主的社會少得多。

儘管如此，我會對這一問題上的任何簡單化二元對立持審慎態度。在香港大學的課堂上，學生對我們所討論的任何議題都會呈現出各種不同的觀點。因此，儘管存在不同的本地適用方式和價值側重，我仍然認為那些核心價值在全球範圍內是廣泛共通的。

醫療法與侵權法領域目前有哪些新趨勢令您特別感興趣或感到憂慮？

我總是對自己當下正在研究的課題最為興奮。目前，我對精神損害與心理健康相關問題以及生殖過失（reproductive negligence）領域非常感興趣。關於研究趨勢，我有時確實研究過一些可能被視為「熱門」的課題。例如，我曾在英國擬進行法律改革之際研究代孕和「轉換治療」（conversion therapy）問題。然而，學術研究往往周期較長。如果一味追逐熱點，當論文完成並經過同行評審之後，該議題可能已不再「熱門」。因此，雖然我會關注新興趨勢，但我的研究主要還是圍繞我真正感興趣的主題展開。

隨着人工智能輔助醫療和新生殖技術的興起，您認為法律目前對哪些新興倫理問題準備最為不足？

就人工智能問題而言，我認為它帶來了極為重大的挑戰。對人工智能公司的「監管俘獲」（regulatory capture）問題令人憂慮。雖然人工智能可能帶來巨大的益處，但同樣存在造成危害的潛力。不過，就我所研究的侵權法領域而言，我認為該學科應對人工智能帶來的挑戰方面其實具備相當的能力。這是因為侵權法本質上具有內在的靈活性，能夠隨着時間不斷演進。儘管人工智能確實帶來重大挑戰，但也應當注意到，人工智能被視為第四次工業革命的一部分，而侵權法已經成功應對了前三次工業革命。因此，我認為，儘管侵權法會因應人工智能而作出調整，但其許多基本原則——例如「不應因疏忽而對他人造成傷害」——仍將持續發揮重要作用。

您最近發表了關於「錯誤生命」（wrongful life）中過失責任的文章。為什麼這一領域具有爭議性？

產前損害（prenatal injuries）可以通過一個例子來說明。曾有一種名為沙利度胺（thalidomide）的藥物，孕婦服用後會導致胎兒出生缺陷。服用該藥物的女性所生育的孩子往往患有相當嚴重的殘障。若他們提出索賠，即構成產前傷害案件：該孩子本應健康出生，卻因藥物導致殘障。

「錯誤生命」案件則有所不同。例如，一名孕婦感染了風疹（rubella），該疾病也可能導致出生缺陷。感染風疹本身並非任何人的過錯，因此在此階段不存在疏忽。隨後她前往就醫，醫生卻錯誤地告知其未感染該疾病。最終孩子出生，並因風疹而患有殘障。然而，如果醫生當時如實告知她患有風疹，她本可能選擇終止妊娠，孩子也就不會出生。

這使「錯誤生命」案件與產前損害案件存在本質區別。在沙利度胺案中，孩子本應健康出生，卻因他人的疏忽而殘疾；而在「錯誤生命」案件中，孩子要麼在無人有過錯的情況下帶殘障出生（編者按：醫生如實告知母親患有風疹，且母親決定生下孩子），要麼若醫生未有疏忽，母親將終止妊娠，孩子便根本不會存在。因此，這類案件具有高度爭議性，因為孩子實際上是在主張自己本不應出生或不應存在。「錯誤生命」案件核心難題在於：「存在本身是否可以被視為一種損害或傷害？」

在我的研究中，我考察了該領域適用的立法（在英格蘭與香港基本一致），並發現其中存在諸多重大不一致之處。無論人們是否支持此類請求，現行立法由於缺乏一致性，實際上無法令任何一方滿意。因此，我提出應對該立法進行修改，以實現更具原則性與一致性的制度。

近年來圍繞安樂死與”死亡權”（right to die）的社會討論再度興起，您認為法院、立法機構和醫療機構應在構建未來臨終關懷框架中扮演怎樣的角色？

這是一個在全球範圍內都極具爭議的問題。首先，我們必須釐清「死亡權」或「安樂死」的含義，因為這些概念有時較為模糊。有些人所說的「死亡權」是指當事人拒絕醫療治療的權利；也有人指的是由他人採取積極措施協助當事人死亡。同樣，「安樂死」有時指當事人自願結束生命；有時則指在當事人未必表示同意的情況下，為終結其痛苦而結束其生命。因此，僅僅是對這些概念達成共識，本身就充滿爭議。

其次，還存在另一個頗具爭議的問題：我們是否應當允許這些行為？這在倫理上往往極具爭議，因為我們必須在個人決定如何生活或終結生命的權利、減輕痛苦以及保護弱勢群體之間尋求平衡。同樣值得注意的是，自殺的影響超越個人本身，同樣波及其家庭成員。這些都是極為複雜的考量因素。

此外，還存在一個問題：這一議題究竟應由法院還是立法機關主導解決，這涉及政治與憲制層面的考量。在課堂上，這一問題總能引發豐富的討論，不同法域之間的觀點差異尤為有趣。在英國與香港（尤其是有來自中國內地學生參與的課堂）中，觀點呈現出高度多樣性。對此我並無確定答案，但上述因素是任何嚴肅討論中都必須考慮的關鍵。

您如何看待未來十年法律教育的演變？（來自上一個受訪者的提問）

這是一個很難回答的問題。有句話說得好：”人類計劃，上帝發笑。”因此，預測未來可能相當愚蠢。儘管如此，我確實認為人工智能將在未來的法律教育中扮演一定角色。它確實帶來了一些益處，但也存在許多代價。我們必須確保所提交的作業是學生本人的成果，且學生既能有效運用人工智能，也能在不依賴人工智能的情況下獨立解答法律問題和分析案例。沒有任何客戶會願意聘請一位每遇問題都要諮詢ChatGPT的事務律師（solicitor）或大律師（barrister）。因此，我們必須確保學生具備紮實的分析能力，能夠在無輔助的情況下獨立閱讀和理解複雜判決。這將是未來法律教育面臨的一項關鍵挑戰。同時，我們還需要確保考試能夠真實反映學生自身能力，而非人工智能的產出。

法律教育往往受到法律專業發展的影響，實務領域的變化通常會逐步傳導至教育領域，因此很難對未來作出有把握的預測。以上是我對這一問題的初步看法。

我衷心希望，傳統講座與研討（lecture & tutorial）模式仍能保有一席之地。這一形式已延續數百年，我相信它在未來依然會有其價值。

您希望向下一位”Introduction to HKU Law”受訪者提出什麼問題？

您在從事研究時是否有固定的寫作習慣？

您能向讀者推薦三本書和三部電影嗎？

我讀了大量歷史書籍。在英國時，我常讀關於玫瑰戰爭和都鐸王朝的著作，最近則在讀許多關於中國歷史的書籍。關於小說，我推薦以下三部：石黑一雄的《長日將盡》、瑪格麗特·阿特伍德的《貓眼》，以及大衛·米切爾的《骨鍾》。

至於電影，由於我經常去影院，僅選三部實屬不易。我選擇：《上班女郎》、《藍絲絨》，以及我近期觀看的一部中國電影《霸王別姬》。

Back to News