This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Notes Medical Law Notes

The Law Of Medical Negligence Notes

Updated The Law Of Medical Negligence Notes

Medical Law Notes

Medical Law

Approximately 1067 pages

Medical Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. These notes cover all the LLB medical law cases and so are perfect for anyone doing an LLB in the UK or a great supplement for those doing LLBs abroad, whether that be in Ireland, Hong Kong or Malaysia (University of London).

These were the best Medical Law notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through forty-eight LLB samples from outstanding law students with the highest...

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Medical Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Criticisms of the Current Legal System of Medical Negligence

Is the Bolam test the correct one?

  • Means that we don’t judges becoming amateur doctors – this is perfectly justifiable

    • The nature of professional services leads to this need

      • The public at large don’t have these skills or body of knowledge that professionals do

        • Often, only a professional’s peers can judged these questions - When those peers disagree and the disagreement illustrates genuine and well founded debate within a profession

          • Judges are not generally equipped to adjudicate in such a dispute.

          • Brazier: A professional should not be penalised, and be held to be incompetent, just because a judge fancies 'playing' at being architect, solicitor or doctor

            • judges may quite properly be hesitant to intervene to second-guess the opinion held, and reasonably held, by one body of opinion within a profession.

  • The problem is that the professionals begin to set the standards

    • Not appreciating evidential value, just letting set standards

      • Bolam is correct to recognise that in complex scientific or technical fields, judges may and should be reluctant to cast doubt on evidential veracity

        • However, we appear to come to the point where the profession is actually setting the standard of liability

          • Not merely that judges are using the standards given as having a certain evidential value.

    • This is distinct from other professions

      • In all other professions it is no defence for an individual to show that others would have acted in the same way

      • Jones: In other professional negligence claims, time after time, judges have made it clear that expert opinion must be demonstrably responsible and reasonable

        • Edward Wong Finance Co. Ltd. v. Johnson Stokes and Master - a practice nearly universally endorsed by solicitors in Hong Kong was nonetheless found to be negligent

          • The risk of fraud was obvious and inherent in the practice. It could have been prevented with ease.

            • The fact that other respected professionals followed the same 'unsafe' practice was not sufficient evidence to say that the practice was reasonable.

      • Me: Hencewhy the judgement in Burne v A is a good one – it requires judges to see whether the experts can defend their views justifiably

        • Avoiding amateur judgements based on an incomplete picture of the justifications, but also not simply accepting what is given

          • You only need to give the experts the opportunity to defend.

  • The more generous interpretation of Bolam places a massive burden on claimants

    • We have the position where if D can find one expert to help them, C’s claim fails

      • C has to find every expert in the field and for each of them to say that what D did was negligent

        • Brazier: Conversely, all Bolam has been interpreted to require is that D fields experts from their medical specialty

          • prepared to testify that they would have followed the same course of management of C as D did.

            • If such experts can be identified, are patently honest and stand by their testimony vigorously,

              • neither they nor D will be asked to justify their practice

    • The test is too high – it needs an expert to not only say that what D did was not what they would have done, but that no other colleague would have done it

      • It’s quite hard to find an expert who will make such a damning condemnation

  • Undermines the idea of collaborative partnership between the doctor and patient

    • Seems to reinforce paternalism – i.e. doctor knows best.

      • In Re F, regarding the interpretation of best interests of an adult patient unable to consent themselves

        • HoL:

          • No need for a Bolam-plus test - conformity to a reasonable and responsible body of medical opinion suffices

        • Lord Goff (maj):

          • Decisions about the welfare of a mentally incapacitated person are not exclusively within medical expertise and that others might be consulted

            • BUT His words were permissive, not mandatory – it might be good practice to consult, but it was not necessary for doctors to do so – their opinion sufficed.

      • Sidaway v. Royal Bethlem Hospital – followed Bolam

        • Lord Scarman (dis):

          • Doctor has a duty to disclose information about the risks of proposed treatment to the 'prudent patient' standard.

        • Lord Diplock (maj)

          • Patient was prima facie entitled to be told only so much as a responsible body of medical opinion judged prudent.

        • Lord Bridge (maj):

          • May be very limited circumstances where this could be extended a little bit.

      • Blyth and Gold

        • CoA:

          • Preferred Lord Diplock’s approach

          • Failure to give a patient adequate advice on the merits and demerits of proposed treatment

            • was simply an issue relating to breach of duty of care

              • to be judged identically (i.e. in conformity to Bolam) to any other alleged breach of duty

    • Contrast with Pearce

      • Lord Woolf:

        • He cites both Lord Bridge in Sidaway, and Lord Browne-Wilkinson in Bolitho,

          • to support a proposition capable of effecting a radical departure from a 'reasonable doctor' test.

        • The law requires that if there is a significant risk which would affect the judgement of a reasonable patient,

          • then in the normal course it is the responsibility of a doctor to inform the patient of that significant risk,

            • if the information is needed so that the patient can determine for him or herself as to what course she should adopt

  • Things to bear in mind

    • Bolam allows for innovative medical practice

      • Without it, doctors might retreat and no longer try out new things which are essential for research and saving lives

        • And instead just tow the orthodox party line.

        • Bolam allows them to be more inventive, provided there are other experienced colleagues who agree with them.

    • Discourages defensive medicine

      • Not quite clear exactly what this is, but essentially the increased threat of litigation means that doctors will potentially tread on eggshells

        • Fearing that new treatments or something they do which is slightly unusual will lead to them being sued

        • Fear of...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Medical Law Notes.

More Medical Law Samples