Medical negligence: Can doctors and nurses still rely on the doctrine that they know best?

This source preferred by Matthew Hartwell

Authors: Hartwell, M.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W7W-4GT7V51-1&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=aee5be92f09e68848da7df6d1de3de51

Journal: Legal Medicine

Volume: 7

Pages: 293-298

ISSN: 1344-6223

DOI: 10.1016/j.legalmed.2005.04.006

It is questionable today as to whether doctors know what is in the patient's best interest when it comes to delivering health care. This is further highlighted by changes in English law where the previously sound Bolam test has come under scrutiny as expert witness testimony is being contested in terms of its defensibility. Hence the Bolitho case has questioned the authenticity of expert knowledge in view of the Bolam test to the extent that opinion amongst expert groups may not in fact be based on sound current knowledge. As such this then has implications on the outcome of future litigations because expert opinion may well be open to scrutiny and logicality. Therefore this article will discuss the development of medical negligence litigation since the inception of the Bolam test as a defence in medical law. It will also discuss Lord Woolf's warning to medical professionals that the courts would no longer apply a deferential ‘Doctors knows best’ doctrine in negligence cases. It will particularly look at the Bolam test and discuss whether this standing alone is a good enough defence in medical negligence.

This data was imported from PubMed:

Authors: Hartwell, M.

Journal: Leg Med (Tokyo)

Volume: 7

Issue: 5

Pages: 293-298

ISSN: 1344-6223

DOI: 10.1016/j.legalmed.2005.04.006

It is questionable today as to whether doctors know what is in the patient's best interest when it comes to delivering health care. This is further highlighted by changes in English law where the previously sound Bolam test has come under scrutiny as expert witness testimony is being contested in terms of its defensibility. Hence the Bolitho case has questioned the authenticity of expert knowledge in view of the Bolam test to the extent that opinion amongst expert groups may not in fact be based on sound current knowledge. As such this then has implications on the outcome of future litigations because expert opinion may well be open to scrutiny and logicality. Therefore, this article will discuss the development of medical negligence litigation since the inception of the Bolam test as a defence in medical law. It will also discuss Lord Woolf's warning to medical professionals that the courts would no longer apply a deferential 'Doctors knows best' doctrine in negligence cases. It will particularly look at the Bolam test and discuss whether this standing alone is a good enough defence in medical negligence.

This data was imported from Scopus:

Authors: Hartwell, M.

Journal: Legal Medicine

Volume: 7

Issue: 5

Pages: 293-298

ISSN: 1344-6223

DOI: 10.1016/j.legalmed.2005.04.006

It is questionable today as to whether doctors know what is in the patient's best interest when it comes to delivering health care. This is further highlighted by changes in English law where the previously sound Bolam test has come under scrutiny as expert witness testimony is being contested in terms of its defensibility. Hence the Bolitho case has questioned the authenticity of expert knowledge in view of the Bolam test to the extent that opinion amongst expert groups may not in fact be based on sound current knowledge. As such this then has implications on the outcome of future litigations because expert opinion may well be open to scrutiny and logicality. Therefore, this article will discuss the development of medical negligence litigation since the inception of the Bolam test as a defence in medical law. It will also discuss Lord Woolf's warning to medical professionals that the courts would no longer apply a deferential 'Doctors knows best' doctrine in negligence cases. It will particularly look at the Bolam test and discuss whether this standing alone is a good enough defence in medical negligence. © 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

This data was imported from CiNii EN:

Authors: HARTWELL, M.

Journal: Legal medicine

Volume: 7

Issue: 5

Pages: 293-298

ISSN: 1344-6223

This data was imported from CiNii JP:

Authors: HARTWELL, M.

Journal: Legal medicine

Volume: 7

Issue: 5

Pages: 293-298

ISSN: 1344-6223

This data was imported from Europe PubMed Central:

Authors: Hartwell, M.

Journal: Legal medicine (Tokyo, Japan)

Volume: 7

Issue: 5

Pages: 293-298

eISSN: 1873-4162

ISSN: 1344-6223

It is questionable today as to whether doctors know what is in the patient's best interest when it comes to delivering health care. This is further highlighted by changes in English law where the previously sound Bolam test has come under scrutiny as expert witness testimony is being contested in terms of its defensibility. Hence the Bolitho case has questioned the authenticity of expert knowledge in view of the Bolam test to the extent that opinion amongst expert groups may not in fact be based on sound current knowledge. As such this then has implications on the outcome of future litigations because expert opinion may well be open to scrutiny and logicality. Therefore, this article will discuss the development of medical negligence litigation since the inception of the Bolam test as a defence in medical law. It will also discuss Lord Woolf's warning to medical professionals that the courts would no longer apply a deferential 'Doctors knows best' doctrine in negligence cases. It will particularly look at the Bolam test and discuss whether this standing alone is a good enough defence in medical negligence.

The data on this page was last updated at 05:13 on February 22, 2020.