Maclean Alasdair
University of Glasgow, UK.
Med Law Int. 2005;7(1):1-40. doi: 10.1177/096853320500700101.
In England the standard of risk disclosure required of doctors to avoid liability in negligence is governed by the Bolam test. The test is determined by what would be accepted as reasonable by the responsible doctor. Although able to lay down an independent standard, the courts have usually been guided by the medical expert's evidence. The judge's duty to scrutinise expert evidence was reaffirmed by the recent House of Lords ruling in Bolitho v City and Hackney HA. In Pearce v United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust, Lord Woolf MR confirmed that this also applied to risk disclosure. Brazier & Miola argue that Pearce effectively introduces the prudent patient standard into English law. This paper examines that claim and considers whether it is justified by the Pearce judgment. The implications of Pearce are explored and, given the appeal to the concept of a material risk, I discuss the relevance of empirical research to determining the standard of disclosure. Finally, a small piece of empirical work is presented as an illustration of the pros and cons of such an approach and as a possible springboard for future research.
在英国，医生为避免过失责任所需进行的风险披露标准受博勒姆测试的制约。该测试由负责任的医生认为合理的内容来决定。尽管法院能够制定独立的标准，但通常会以医学专家的证据为指导。上议院最近在博利索诉伦敦市和哈克尼健康管理局案中的裁决重申了法官审查专家证据的职责。在皮尔斯诉联合布里斯托尔医疗保健国民保健服务信托案中，伍尔夫勋爵大法官确认这也适用于风险披露。布雷齐尔和米奥拉认为，皮尔斯案实际上将审慎患者标准引入了英国法律。本文审视了这一说法，并考虑皮尔斯案的判决是否能证明其合理性。探讨了皮尔斯案的影响，鉴于对重大风险概念的诉求，我讨论了实证研究对于确定披露标准的相关性。最后，展示了一项小型实证研究，以说明这种方法的优缺点，并作为未来研究的一个可能跳板。
