This is an extract of our No Fault System document, which we sell as part of our Medical Law and Ethics Notes collection written by the top tier of University Of Oxford students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Medical Law and Ethics Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
NO FAULT SYSTEM WHAT IS IT
1. Patients who suffer some 'adverse event' while receiving medical care should receive compensation even if there was no negligence. Thus, it would unnecessary for a court to conduct an enquiry into whether the medical practitioner was negligent.
2. Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 - creates a no fault compensation scheme in respect of injuries caused by vaccinations performed by the NHS
3. Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Act (No 2) 2005 - in New Zealand this Act permits compensation to be paid for 'treatment injury' without the need to show that the doctor behaved negligently
AGAINST a) LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY
1. Merry & McCall Smith - no distinction between medical mispractice and unfortunate misadventure fails to bring doctors to account
2. ME: but law of negligence isn't meant to bring doctors to account b) NEW ZEALAND
1. Bismark et al (2006) - less than 3% of those who could claim under the scheme do so - meaning it only works because most entitled do not claim
2. Douglas - NZ shows that there is great difficulty in defining the boundaries of medical injury compensation c) COMPENSATION CULTURE d) STILL COMPLEX
1. could be new area of complexity drawing distinction between people who are ill (not compensated) and people suffering as a result of medical treatment going wrong
2. Douglas - could be major difficulties including the naturally incapacitated within the scheme e) EXPENSIVE
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Medical Law and Ethics Notes.