Hartwell Matthew
Institute of Health and Community Studies, Bournemouth University, Fourth Floor, Bournemouth House, Bournemouth, Dorset BH1 3LJ, UK.
Leg Med (Tokyo). 2005 Oct;7(5):293-8. doi: 10.1016/j.legalmed.2005.04.006.
It is questionable today as to whether doctors know what is in the patient's best interest when it comes to delivering health care. This is further highlighted by changes in English law where the previously sound Bolam test has come under scrutiny as expert witness testimony is being contested in terms of its defensibility. Hence the Bolitho case has questioned the authenticity of expert knowledge in view of the Bolam test to the extent that opinion amongst expert groups may not in fact be based on sound current knowledge. As such this then has implications on the outcome of future litigations because expert opinion may well be open to scrutiny and logicality. Therefore, this article will discuss the development of medical negligence litigation since the inception of the Bolam test as a defence in medical law. It will also discuss Lord Woolf's warning to medical professionals that the courts would no longer apply a deferential 'Doctors knows best' doctrine in negligence cases. It will particularly look at the Bolam test and discuss whether this standing alone is a good enough defence in medical negligence.
如今,在提供医疗保健方面,医生是否知晓什么对患者最有利是值得怀疑的。英国法律的变化进一步凸显了这一点,此前合理的博勒姆测试受到了审视,因为专家证人的证词在可辩护性方面受到了质疑。因此,鉴于博勒姆测试,博利索案对专家知识的真实性提出了质疑,以至于专家群体之间的意见实际上可能并非基于可靠的当前知识。如此一来,这便对未来诉讼的结果产生了影响,因为专家意见很可能会受到审查和逻辑性的考量。所以,本文将探讨自博勒姆测试作为医疗法律中的一项抗辩理由确立以来医疗过失诉讼的发展。还将讨论伍尔夫勋爵对医疗专业人员的警告,即法院在过失案件中将不再适用顺从的“医生最清楚”原则。尤其会审视博勒姆测试,并讨论仅靠这一测试在医疗过失中是否足以成为一项充分的抗辩理由。