A restraint
on the Bolam standard further disclosed in the decision made in November 1997,
by the House of Lords, in Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority
- The applicability of the Bolam
test was affirmed but it was subject to the proviso that in cases
involving the weighing of risks against benefits it could be demonstrated
that the experts who had formulated their view had directed their minds to
the question of comparative risks and benefits and had reached a
defensible conclusion on the matter.
- That is, before a practice could
be described as being in accordance with the practice accepted as proper
by a ‘responsible’ or ‘reasonable’ or ‘respectable’ body of professional
opinion, the exponents of that opinion could demonstrate that such opinion
had a logical basis.
- If the courts were not convinced
that a logical conclusion was reached by the medical profession, then the
law would set the standard for them.
- However, the principal
qualification to this apparent revision of the Bolam standard was expressed
by Lord Browne–Wilkinson when he said that "It would ‘very seldom’ be
right for a judge to conclude that the genuine views of a competent
medical expert were illogical… though he reserved the right to do
so."
No comments:
Post a Comment