In a legal case called Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957), the principle was established that if a doctor acted in accordance with a certain standard of practice, which was recognised as a proper standard by a responsible body of medical opinion, he was not negligent merely because another responsible body of medical opinion took the view that another standard of practice was more appropriate. What this basically means is that where there are two schools of thought about how a doctor should act in a certain situation, a doctor is not in breach of duty if he acts in accordance with one school of thought and not the other. However, if a doctor falls below a standard of practice recognised as proper by every responsible body of medical opinion at the time, then that is a breach of duty.
This principle, known as the Bolam principle, was later refined by another case known as Bolitho. In that case, it was decided that if a doctor tries to justify his care by relying on a certain body of medical opinion, the court has to be satisfied that such opinion is actually reasonable, and can withstand logical analysis. Therefore, if a doctor claims that his standard of care was acceptable because it was supported by a body of medical opinion, but the court finds that such opinion was wholly unreasonable, then a breach of duty against the doctor can still be established.
It can be seen that in order to establish a case against a doctor or another medical professional, evidence is needed from a medical expert as to: a) the standards set by reasonable bodies of medical opinion, and b) whether the doctor’s care fell below those standards, in which case he was in breach of his duty to the patient. If you feel that you have been the victim of medical negligence, then solicitors specialising in this area can commission a report from an expert who will give an opinion on whether the standard of care in your case was negligent.
Please contact one of the solicitors in our directory, who should be able to help you.