Just a few, pedantic but important, legal points:
> In any decision affecting a patient there is
> the possibility of a negligent act and resulting prosecution. (Matthew
Dunn)
Negligent acts might lead to litigation, but only rarely result in criminal
charges or prosecution. I think if we had the threat of prosecution hanging
over our heads for all of our decisions, then we should all give up now
while we're ahead!
> Clearly the
> threshold to immobilise will also be influenced by clinical experience but
> at the end of the day the "Bolam" test will be applied by a judge in a
> negligence claim when deciding whether a defendant can show that he acted
in
> accordance with a body of competent professional opinion. (John Black)
The Bolam test has now been superseded by Bolitho:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199798/ldjudgmt/jd971
113/boli01.htm
While I acknowledge that this represents merely a modification of Bolam, it
is generally viewed as strengthening the plaintiff's position in medical
negligence cases. I hasten to add that I'm not trying to engender defensive
behaviour; I agree wholeheartedly with John's comments, "I think it is vital
that clinical practice remains patient centred and is not medico-legally
driven". I'm just making a point that under Bolam you could defend yourself
despite some pretty dodgy practice, but that's no longer so easy under
Bolitho.
Adrian Fogarty
|