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