When an individual has suffered through medical negligence it can be a very traumatic time. People place a lot of trust in doctors and medical practitioners and naturally when it comes to health issues are more often than not keen to take the advice and recommendations of a qualified medical professional.
This can make it all the more difficult to cope when such a professional falls below the standard of care that they are expected to provide to their patients.
Indeed, at law the duty provided by a physician to their patient is based on an assumption of responsibility by the doctor for their patient. Obviously it is implied that as the doctor has this responsibility, if they do not maintain their responsibility then it may lead to harm to the patient. Because of this duty of care it means that a doctor could be found negligent not just in the event that they treat a patient in a way that causes them harm, but they could also be found negligent if they fail to take action to treat a patient.
So what is the standard of care which is appropriate in medical negligence cases?
This is held to be the Bolam test, based on the comments of Judge Mcnair in the case of Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee. The judge stated,
”A doctor is not guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art….Putting it the other way round a doctor is not negligent, if he is acting in accordance with such a practice, merely because there is a body of opinion which takes a contrary view”
This is a little unclear but it essentially it means that a doctor need not hold the highest expert skill, but must have be of the standard of an ordinary, competent doctor exercising that particular skill. Whether or not a doctor falls below that standard can depend on such factors as the resources at his disposal and also what is perceived as ‘good practice’ in the profession at the time.