The house of lords decision in bolitho bolitho

Bolitho v. City and Hackney Health Authority: Wikis

The legislative body decided that the normal period of six years under the Limitation Act governing the start of legal claims can be extended. Horn's argument was that her breach of duty did not cause Patrick's death.

TRUMPING BOLAM: A CRITICAL LEGAL ANALYSIS OF BOLITHO'S

According to that test, which has been criticised by academic commentators, a doctor would not have acted negligently if his actions conformed to a practice supported by a body of professional opinion. Commentary[ edit ] The House of Lords decision in Bolitho seems to be a departure from the old Bolam test established by the Queen's Bench Division in a case Bolam v.

Although he was revived, he suffered severe brain damage and later died. Comparators in disability discrimination claims. She argued that Patrick would have lived if he had been intubated. It was agreed that the only course of action to prevent the damage was to have the boy intubated.

Although he was revived, he suffered severe brain damage and later died. Although he was revived, he suffered severe brain damage and later died. Judgment The House of Lords held that there would have to be a logical basis for the opinion not to intubate.

The difficulty of this approach, as in the end I think Mr Brennan acknowledged, was that in effect it invited me to substitute my own views for those of the medical experts. However, the Court in Bolitho did not specify in what circumstances it would be prepared to hold that the doctor has breached his duty of care by following a practice supported by a body of professional opinion, other than stating that such a case will be "rare".

Patrick had two respiratory episodes where he went pale and his breathing became "noisy"[1]. We shall never know. So there was a need to decide if the hypothetical decision not to intubate Patrick would have been a breach of duty.

Dr Rodger was concerned and arranged for him to be nursed by a special nurse on a one-to-one basis. Facts Patrick Bolitho, a two-year-old boy, was suffering from croup. On 17 Januaryat about Patrick had two respiratory episodes where he went pale and his breathing became "noisy" [1].

The essence of the decision of the House of Lords was that, in deciding this question of secondary negligence, the court should apply the Bolam test as if to a question of primary negligence and ask itself the following question: However, the Court in Bolitho did not specify in what circumstances it would be prepared to hold that the doctor has breached his duty of care by following a practice supported by a body of professional opinion, other than stating that such a case will be "rare".

The doctor who negligently failed to attend to the boy said that she would not have intubated had she attended. It was agreed that the only course of action to prevent the damage was to have the boy intubated.

So that decision would not have been negligent. In particular, where there are questions of assessment of the relative risks and benefits of adopting a particular medical practice, a reasonable view necessarily presupposes that the relative risks and benefits have been weighed by the experts forming their opinions.

But how could the decision have been any different on logical or legal grounds?

Bolitho v City and Hackney HA

However, the 3 experts called by the Defence all said that, on the symptoms as recounted by the nurses, intubation would not have been appropriate. Patrick's mother, as administratrix of his estate, sued the local health authority in negligence.

Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority: Wikis

Initially, Patrick became agitated and began to cry.My Lords, I agree with these submissions to the extent that, in my view, the court is not bound to hold that a defendant doctor escapes liability for negligent treatment or diagnosis just because he leads evidence from a number of medical experts who are genuinely of opinion that the defendant's treatment or diagnosis accorded with sound medical practice.

cases since Bolitho was handed down, that case has not been explicitly referred to, but the relevant Bolam evidence has been discounted, for reasons which suggest that the doctor's expert opinion was not perceived to be defensible. In that regard, unarticulated Bolitho factors do not enhance the transparency of the law.

Published: Mon, 5 Dec “The House of Lords decision in Bolitho (Bolitho v City and Hackney HA [] AC. ) is a belated and welcome departure from judicial deference to medical opinion but there is still too much deference and more has to be done”.

The House of Lords decision in Bolitho seems to be a departure from the old [[Bolam test}established by the Queen's Bench Division in a case Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee.

According to that test, which has been criticised by academic commentators, a doctor would not have acted negligently if his actions conformed to a. On 11 January Patrick was admitted to St.

Catholic Medical Quarterly

Bartholomew's suffering from croup and was treated under the care of the senior paediatric registrar, Dr. Janet Horn, and the senior house officer in paediatrics, Dr. Keri Rodger. On 15 January he was discharged home. No complaint is made about this episode in his treatment.

The article discusses the court case Bolitho v. City and the House of Lords' decision over it. According to the author, based on the House of Lords decision on this case, peer professional opinion which is supposed to represent evidence of responsible medical practice can be departed from, if.

Download
The house of lords decision in bolitho bolitho
Rated 0/5 based on 93 review