Does doctor know best? The recent trend in medical negligence

The hospital involved, on the other hand, produced other expert witnesses who concurred with the procedure adopted by the defending doctor and who considered informing the patient of risk of fracture as unnecessary. Since the practice of doctors was supported by a body of medical opinions, the standard of the defending doctor’s practice could not be questioned and as such the doctor was acquitted by the jury. The principle enunciated in Bolam’s case discourages second guessing any medical judgment even by fellow doctors. [...]as long as the practice of a doctor is supported by a body of medical opinion, it is not the business of the court to question the appropriateness of that body of opinion. In this regard, perhaps the human rights discourse of self determination and autonomy of an individual had some influence in this shift. [...]the court has the ultimate responsibility to determine whether a practice conforms to the standard of reasonable care demanded by law. Perhaps it may lend credence to the need for the court to form its own opinion about a reasonable standard of care in diagnosis, treatment and advice. [...]although there were differences of expert opinions with regard to a reasonable decision of a vascular interventional radiologist to proceed with a renal angioplasty after being aware of an anatomical variation, a court found that the radiologist had taken all the reasonable steps necessary to ensure proper placement of the balloon [8].