“The House of Lords decision in Bolitho (Bolitho
“The House of Lords decision in Bolitho (Bolitho
“THE HOME of Lords decision in Bolitho (Bolitho v City and Hackney HA  AC
232) is certainly a belated and welcome departure from judicial deference to medical thoughts and opinions but there is still an excessive amount of deference and more should be done”.
Critically comment on the above statement.
In any negligence state, in order to do well the claimant must display that he was owed a duty of good care by the defendant, that the duty of attention was breached, and that the breach of duty triggered the harm complained of. Kennedy and Grubb comment that the work of attention arises ‘from a obtain medical services by a person and a consequent undertaking by a doctor [or other healthcare professional] to supply these services. Margaret Brazier offers observed: ‘[a] patient claiming against his doctor … usually has little difficulty in establishing that the defendant owes him a duty of attention’.
The second level of a clinical carelessness action is to show that the physician has breached his normal of care. In any negligence claim, the typical of care is defined by law and can be an objective standard. Words such as for example reasonable or responsible are normally attributed to such a standard. Such adjectives aren’t normally equated with a practice that is ‘common’ or ‘accepted’. With respect to medical negligence claims nevertheless, the law has not taken such a watch. The case of Bolam v Friern Medical center Management Committee has established that ‘a doctor is not guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with a practice recognized as appropriate by a responsible body system of medical guys skilled for the reason that particular artwork’. The Bolam circumstance was a decision initially instance, but was soon after approved by the House of Lords in Whitehouse v Jordan.
The courts have consistently taken a protectionist perspective of the medical career in clinical negligence claims. Jackson acknowledges that this could be as a result of complexity of medical proof, but it may be explained by a sense of professional solidarity. The medical career has been respectable in world, and the courts also have expressed their value. In Wilsher v Essex AHA, Mustill LJ comments:
“For all we know, [The doctors in this case] far surpassed on various occasions the standard of reasonable care and attention. Yet it is stated that for one lapse they (and not only their employers) are to be held liable in damages. Nobody could criticise the mom for doing her best to secure her son’s monetary future. But hasn’t the law taken an incorrect turning if an actions of the kind is to succeed?”
It is interesting to notice the difference in insurance policy in cases involving medical professionals. In other negligence cases, the courts include commented that the function of regulations of negligence (and the law of torts generally), is to pay injured parties for reduction. The judiciary experienced no moral objections to awarding damages where they are able to apply the ‘deepest pocket’ principle. So, in Nettleship v Weston, Lord Denning had no problems in asserting that a learner driver will be held to the same common of a reliable driver (competent will be ascertained on a target basis by the court), as the driver would be insured and thus, the law will award damages from the deepest pocket. But, there has been extensive hesitation in having doctors negligent for general public policy reasons, even though doctors will be be covered. Furthermore, doctors working in the NHS will generally not really be personally held accountable for the negligence – the actions is certainly brought against the Trust vicariously and NHS Trusts in England and Wales will be portion of an ‘insurance like’ scheme, the Clinical Carelessness Scheme for Trusts (CNST) administered by the NHS Litigation Authority.
The Bolam principle may be formulated as a rule that a doctor is not negligent if he acts relative to a practice accepted at the time as correct by a responsible overall body of medical opinion despite the fact that different doctors may adopt a several practice. ‘In short, regulations imposes the work of care; but the standard of health care is a matter of medical judgment.’ In Maynard v West Midlands RHA, Lord Scarman seemed to favour an approach that a doctor will never be negligent if there are other reasonably held approaches that are the identical to the defendant doctor’s approach:
“I have to say a judge’s ‘preference’ for one body of distinguished professional view to another also professionally distinguished isn’t sufficient to establish carelessness in a practitioner whose actions have received the press of those whose views, truthfully expressed, honestly held, were not desired … For in the realm of analysis and treatment negligence is not founded by preferring one respectable overall body of professional thoughts and opinions to another.”
The pure Bolam procedure is the subject of scathing educational criticism. Kennedy and Grubb comment: “It could seem curious that regulations would defer to the medical occupation in setting the content of the work in negligence.”
Despite the deference to the medical occupation in the courts, there were some exceptions and one example is the case of Hucks v Cole. The circumstance involved a pregnant woman with a septic finger whose doctor didn’t prescribe her penicillin. The individual suffered puerperal fever because of this and numerous witnesses gave proof stating that they would not have recommended penicillin in the same situation. However, the Courtroom of Charm held that even if there are relatively small risks involved, the fact that it would have already been easy to avoid such risks therefore conveniently and inexpensively, is obviously not sensible. Sachs LJ comments:
“On such occasions the fact that other practitioners would have done the same thing as the defendant practitioner is an extremely weighty matter to be put on the scales on his behalf; but it isn’t … conclusive. … Despite the fact that the risk could have been avoided by adopting a lessons that was easy, reliable and economical, and which could have entailed only minimal likelihood of disadvantages to the individual, the data of the four defence professionals to the effect that they and different responsible associates of the medical occupation would have considered the same risk in the same conditions has naturally induced me to hesitate … The reasons given by the four experts do not to my mind stand up to analysis …”
The approach taken in Hucks v Cole was likewise adopted by the home of Lords in Bolitho v City and Hackney HA, where the traditional Bolam way was departed from. Lord Browne-Wilkinson comments:
“In the vast majority of cases the fact that distinguished professionals in the discipline are of a particular opinion will show the reasonableness of that opinion. In particular, where there are queries of evaluation of the relative dangers and advantages of adopting a particular medical practice, a reasonable view always presupposes that the relative dangers and benefits have already been weighed by the professionals in forming their thoughts. But if, in a unusual case, it is usually demonstrated that the professional judgment is not capable of withstanding logical analysis, the judge is eligible for hold that the body of opinion isn’t reasonable or responsible.”
The relevance of the Bolitho decision was in the beginning regarded as a major shift from the clean Bolam approach. Following decision, Kennedy and Grubb comment that ‘the legislation has been put back again on its proper training course’. Lord Browne-Wilkinson was suggesting that medical procedure should be defensible and capable of withstanding logical analysis. Even so, he experienced this by stating that this would only occur in ‘rare’ situations. Hucks v Cole was one among those rare cases, nonetheless it is arguable whether there has been a significant shift in methodology by the courts. In Wisniewski v Central Manchester Health Authority, the defendant did not follow a procedure that could have detected a baby’s umbilical cord was covered around his neck during birth and the medical judgment differed over the reasonableness of such. Brooke LJ responses that:
“Hucks v Cole itself was unquestionably among the rare cases which Lord Browne-Wilkinson possessed in mind … In my judgment today’s case falls unquestionably on the far side of the line, and it is quite impossible for a courtroom to hold that the opinions sincerely held by [the specialists supporting the actions of the defendant] cannot logically be backed at all … the views expressed by [those gurus] were views which could be logically backed and held by responsible doctors.”
There have been a little number of ‘rare’ instances where in fact the courts have gone so far as questioning the logic and defensibility of medical authority. The case of Reynolds v North Tyneside Wellness Authority, is one particular example. Consequently, Gross J comments that it is among those ‘rare cases where in fact the Court could and really should conclude that such physique of thoughts and opinions was unreasonable, irresponsible, illogical and indefensible.’ Similarly, in Marriott v West Midlands RHA, the Court of Appeal mentioned that the expert facts distributed by the witnesses defending the doctor’s conduct could not be logically supported. The Courtroom of Appeal as well affirmed that the trial judge was eligible for question whether an thoughts and opinions was reasonably held and Mason and Laurie comment that ‘[o]n the face of things, then, Marriott moves the Bolitho test in one of logic to one of reasonableness, which is much more comparable to the reasoning utilized in various other, non-medical standard of treatment decisions.’
The approach used by the courts content Bolitho seems to recommend that the courts are just prepared to look at the credibility of witnesses rather than this content of their evidence. As long as the data given is ‘truthfully kept’ and ‘honestly expressed’ then your court is reluctant to query the evidence. Furthermore, there were several post-Bolitho decisions and it appears as though there is still a frequent reluctance to question doctors, and if there has been any departure from the original Bolam approach, this absolutely appears to have been on the basis of the credibility of qualified witnesses, rather than on the reasonableness of their judgment. Thus, the next case law suggests a somewhat restrictive strategy on the modification of the Bolam theory in its different Bolitho interpretation.
Writing extra judicially, Lord Woolf remarks that there were a number of reasons for a shift from the traditional procedure in Bolam. The courts apparently now have a less deferential method of those in authority. The courts also have apparently recognised the down sides that genuine claimants have in successfully bringing a clinical negligence claim. Concurrently, there has been a raise in the amount of clinical negligence statements in England and Wales over the last number of years. Furthermore, with an increasing knowing of patient rights, a growing loss of faith in the general public health service following various health ‘scandals’ such as Bristol and Alder main synonym Hey, a judicial deference to the medical career certainly has its days numbered. As well, as Woolf acknowledges, ‘our courts were conscious that courts at the highest degree of other Commonwealth jurisdictions, particularly Canada and Australia, had been rejecting the way of the English Courts. These were subjecting the activities of the medical profession to a closer scrutiny that the English Courts …’
Other commentators also have noted the way in which lawyers approach the problem of using experienced witnesses. Teff comments:
“Reassertion at the best degree of the court’s function in scrutinizing professional practice is normally welcome, not least due to current concerns about the dynamics of offering professional evidence for the requirements of adversarial litigation. Some law firms’ selection of experts is apt to depend an excessive amount of on perceived presentational abilities and acuity in advancing the client’s case, and too little
on detached expertise…
… One prominent medicolegal authority features bluntly declared that ‘Bolam will only work fairly if the use of employed hands as defence medical professionals is eliminated. It could then be feasible to talk of a dependable body of medical thoughts and opinions’.”
Teff has hence outlined a number of the practices that demonstrate how the Bolam theory is deferential in practice. Lawyers tend to look for an expert who’ll make their circumstance stronger, and a survey of 500 qualified witnesses revealed that in regards to a quarter noted comments that in some instances, witnesses were requested to change comments which were alteration of their thoughts.
The problems associated with the Bolam test have not only presented themselves in scientific negligence cases. The traditional Bolam approach was likewise questioned under the scope of ‘informed consent’ situations, which involve a say of negligence for failing woefully to warn of risks inherent in treatment.
The leading case on the issue of disclosure of hazards in treatment is certainly Sidaway v Table of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital. Debate of the Bolam check was present in practically each of the judgments shipped. Lord Bridge asserted that regulations should reject the ‘affordable patient’ test and follow a modified release of the Bolam test out. Accordingly, disclosure of details is ‘primarily a matter of clinical judgment’, but this will not imply that the profession is entitled to set its standard in such cases. Thus, a judge will be entitled to hold that a clinician must have disclosed a risk where there was an operation that involved a ‘substantial risk of grave adverse effects’, giving the example of a 10 % risk of stroke as substantial, but a one or two 2 per cent threat of spinal cord damage had not been substantial. Likewise, Lord Templeman as well suggested a modified Bolam approach ought to be taken.
Subsequent interpretation of the Sidaway case has not been straightforward. The reasoning of the judges in the case is far from consistent, and furthermore, relating to Lord Browne-Wilkinson, the modified test put forward to Bolitho did not apply to such cases. The Courtroom of Charm in Gold v Haringey HA, merely described the judgment of Lord Diplock and for that reason applying the Bolam basic principle in its purest form, an approach not generally followed by the home of Lords in Sidaway. The Australian High Courtroom however decided the problem differently regarding Rogers v Whitaker. If so, the shortcomings of the Bolam evaluation were determined by the High Courtroom:
“One particular consequence of the use of the Bolam principle to cases involving the provision of information or info is that, even if a patient asks a direct question about the possible risks or complications, the building of that inquiry would logically come to be of little if any significance; medical judgment determines whether the risk should or shouldn’t be disclosed and the express desire of a specific patient for data or advice does not alter that view or the legal need for that opinion. The fact that the many majority views in Sidaway … for instance, suggest that, over and above the opinion of a respectable body of doctors, the questions of an individual should truthfully become answered (subject to the therapeutic privilege) signifies a shortcoming in the Bolam methodology.”
The Australian High Court specifically chose never to follow the Bolam test in information disclosure situations, commenting:
“In Australia, it’s been accepted that the typical of care to be observed by a person with some particular skill or competence is definitely that of the ordinary skilled person training and professing to possess that particular skill … But, that normal isn’t determined solely as well as primarily by mention of the practice implemented or backed by a dependable body of thoughts and opinions in the relevant profession or trade … Actually in the sphere of medical diagnosis and treatment, the heartland of the skilled physician, the Bolam principle has not been applied … Further, and more importantly, particularly in neuro-scientific non-disclosure of risk and the provision of suggestions and details, the Bolam principle has been discarded and, rather, the courts have used the principle that, while proof appropriate medical practice is a useful instruction for the courts, it really is for the courts to adjudicate on what’s the appropriate standard of treatment after giving weight to “the paramount concern a person is entitled to make his private decisions about his life”.”
The comments made by Lord Woolf in his paper will be evidently justified when examining your choice in Rogers v Whittaker. Commonwealth decisions have been far more ready to analyze and scrutinize medical facts and it may well not always be a question of furthermore preferential for the judge to check out, but it is rather what the judge feels is reasonable. This will not involve the judge only accepting that two lessons of treatment may contain both been acceptable in the conditions in the view of doctors. The judge’s actual role is to determine the reasonableness of every based on the evidence provided to him and that will not necessarily mean that both have to be right. Mason and Laurie comment:
“[W]hile the courts will be increasingly determined to check out that the Bolam theory isn’t extended [into areas such as for example judging ‘best pursuits’], they still have an innate reluctance to abandon it in respect of medical opinion; there exists a sense that Bolitho, although welcome, has been mainly used in a ‘back-up’ location. What is selected is that Bolam can’t be regarded as impregnable.”
Thus, based on the over comment, the post-Bolitho meaning of Bolam is normally that it is merely a back again up for when the circumstance faced by the courtroom suits a switch in approach. Furthermore, while the courts have been seemingly reluctant to extending the Bolam theory into the needs evaluation, the principle has already been incorporated into the idea of needs. Airedale NHS Trust v Bland expected an analysis of that which was in the very best interests of an individual in a persistent vegetative status, who was being kept alive by artificial nutrition and hydration. Within an research of whether such diet and hydration should be withdrawn (leading to the death of the patient), regulations Lords turned to analyse the patient’s best interests.
The treatment was apparently certainly not in the patient’s best interests. This was since it was thought to be futile. In Lord Goff’s words, ‘the person is unconscious and there is absolutely no prospect of any improvement in his condition’. In deciding if the treatment was futile, the doctor had to act relative to a responsible human body of medical opinion. Extra precisely the doctor had to fulfill the Bolam test. It really is difficult to grasp how it really is relevant in deciding what’s in the very best interests of a patient -conflicting opinions of doctors will be Bolam reasonable provided that an added doctor supports that watch.
In summary, the courts established a completely different system of establishing the typical of care for doctors to that of other experts. The Bolam way has typically been interpreted as a principle that a doctor will never be negligent if additional professional view holds his activities as reasonable, whether or not that opinion is definitely a minority. The courts have already been deferential to the career, and the apparent move away from such approach in Bolitho is normally a disappointment of this deference. Lord Browne-Wilkinson’s text were read quite practically, the emphasis being placed upon what, ‘but if in a unusual case’ – the courts have only questioned ‘reasonable and accountable’ medical opinion in a very small amount of cases and it appears as if the Bolitho approach is, as Mason and Laurie commented, only ‘back up’ if the judge wants to discover for the claimant. Whilst the courts have gradually begun to depart from the original approach, more should be done before there is definitely any evaluation with the procedure of additional Commonwealth jurisdictions, such as Australia. Furthermore, the courts ought to be more clear in their reasoning, as it can be important to be able to ascertain objectively how cases should be chosen grounds of precedent. The majority of clinical negligence promises that are commenced, happen to be settled by the NHS Litigation Authority before they also reach court and would it not be more economical for the NHS to be able to ascertain with higher certainty when a doctor has got been negligent? Finally, your choice in Bolitho is definately not a departure of judicial deference to the medical profession, this is a mere spin on the vocabulary originally found in Bolam. The courts now have ground to make in establishing a far more reasonable, predictable and objective way consistent with other negligence actions.
Brazier, M. ‘Medicine, People and the Legislation’ (2003, 3rd edn) Penguin Books, London
Davies, M. ‘Textbook on Medical Law’ (2001, 2nd edn) Blackstone Press, London
Jaskson, E., ‘Medical Laws – Text, Cases and Products’ (2006) Oxford University Press, Oxford spanish for help
Kennedy, I. & Grubb, A. ‘Medical Law’ (2000, 3rd edn) Butterworths, London
Mason, JK et al, ‘Laws and Medical Ethics’ (2002, 6th edn) Butterworths, London
Montgomery, J. ‘Health Treatment Rules’ (2003, 2nd edn) Oxford University Press, Oxford
National Audit Office, Handling Clinical Negligence Promises in England, 2001
Singer, P., ‘Rethinking Life and Loss of life: The Collapse of our Traditional Ethics’ (OUP Oxford 1994)
Brazier, M., Miola, J., ‘Bye-Bye Bolam: A Medical Litigation Revolution?’ (2000) 8 Med L Rev 85
Keown, J., ‘Reining In the Bolam Test’ (1998) 57 CLJ 248
Teff, H., ‘The Regular of Good care in Medical Negligence – Shifting from Bolam?’ (1998) 19 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 473-84
Woolf, Lord., ‘Will be the Courts Excessively Deferential to the Medical Profession?’ (2001) 9 Medical Laws Review 1-16.
 The establishment of carelessness is a common regulation creation – look at Donoghue v Stevenson  All ER Rep 1
 Kennedy and Grubb, ‘Medical Regulation’ (3rd edn, 2000) at pp 278
 Drugs, Patients and regulations, (3rd Edn, 2003) at pp 141
 See for instance, Nettleship v. Weston  2 QB 691
 2 All ER 118
 (1981) unreported, and Maynard v. West Midlands Regional Well being Authority  1 All ER 635
 Jackson, E., ‘Medical Law – Text, Cases and Materials’, (2006, OUP), Oxford at page 123
  1 QB 730
 above, n 4.
 Lord Scarman in Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital  1 All ER 643
  1 All ER 635
 Kennedy and Grubb, ‘Medical Laws’ (3rd edn, 2000) at pp 418
  4 Med LR 393. Despite the fact that the circumstance was reported in 1994, your choice was actually made in 1960
  4 All ER 771
 Kennedy and Grubb, ‘Medical Laws’ (3rd edn, 2000) at pp 445
  Lloyd’s Rep Med 223 CA
 Unreported, 30 May 2002
  Lloyds Rep Med 23
 Mason, J.K., Laurie, G.T., ‘Mason & McCall Smith’s Law and Medical Ethics’, (2006, 7th Edn) Oxford University Press, Oxford.
 See for example, De Freitas v O’Brien  6 Med LR 108
 see for instance, Briody v St Helen’s & Knowsley AHA  Lloyd’s Rep. Med. 185, Hallatt v NW Anglia HA  Lloyd’s Rep. Med. 197, and Rhodes v W Surrey & NE Hampshire HA  Lloyd’s Rep. Med.. 256
 ‘Are the Courts Excessively Deferential to the Medical Profession?’ (2001) 9 Medical Rules Review 1-16.
 Ibid. Also see, National Audit Office, Handling Clinical Negligence Statements in England, 2001
 Lord Woolf, above n 22
 ‘The Standard of Care in Medical Negligence – Moving on from Bolam?’ (1998) 19 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 473-84
  1 All ER 643
  QB 481
 (1992) 67 ALJR 47
 above, n 22
 See for example Re S (adult patient: sterilisation)  Fam 15,  3 WLR 1288.
  1 All ER 821
  AC 789 at 869