In a message dated 17/08/96 07:22:28, you write:
>Trefor is right about there being no need to be perfect (notwithstanding
>the many contributors to this list who have recently indicated for my
>benefit how they see this as a preconditon to membership of the medical
>profession). However, it is not always the case that the test is
>assessed according to the level of 'training and experience'.
<snip>
>Sometimes the court will take into account the level of training and
experience
>expected by the patient. I can't recall the case name
The latter case name is Whirtehouse v Jordan
The difference between the Bolam test and the ruling in Whitehouse against
Jordan is one of competance. The whitehouse/jordan case revolved around a
registrar who was called to a delivery and failed to provide the highest
standard of care available. He was judged not to be nelgigent because he was
not expected to be as good as the best possible doctor in his field, only as
good as the average for his grade. If you do not understand the difference
between these two landmark cases, how can you be advising on medical
negligance?
I must now declare an interest, as you have aggresively done so before. I
have read the basic law texts and have followed the case law over the years
as I have a brother, and several friends, who are lawyers. I have not
consulted any textbook to type these postings. I need them in my head to
teach medical students. I feel that my previous posting about our differences
is still very relevant.
Please Consider your position on this message board, and perhaps in the
medico-legal field as a whole.
>Maybe a swop for a week would be interesting.Any offers?
Go on then
Trefor Roscoe Email; [log in to unmask]
Beighton Health Centre Tel 0114 - 269 5061
Queens Road, Beighon Fax 0114 - 269 7186
Sheffield S19 6BJ
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|