Med Law Rev. 2021 Aug 11;29(2):373-383. doi: 10.1093/medlaw/fwaa040.
In Brady v Southend University Hospital NHS Trust, the High Court was asked to consider the applicability of Bolam and Bolitho principles in a so-called 'pure diagnosis' claim. The claimant suffered from the long-term effects of an undiagnosed bacterial infection after presenting at the defendant hospital with acute appendicitis. It was argued by claimant's counsel that where the primary allegation of fault concerns diagnosis, no issues of acceptable practice arise and therefore Bolam and Bolitho do not apply. Rejecting this, the High Court confirmed the applicability of Bolam and Bolitho and found that the defendant hospital had not been negligent. Initially, this result may signal a continued deference towards those in the medical profession, however, it is suggested that an alternative reading evidences a case which lays the groundwork for reconsidering the doctor-patient relationship in the context of treatment and diagnosis actions.
在布雷迪诉绍森德大学医院国民保健信托案中，高等法院被要求考虑博勒姆和博利托原则在所谓的“纯粹诊断”索赔中的适用性。原告因急性阑尾炎在被告医院就诊后，长期受到未确诊的细菌感染的影响。原告律师提出，在主要指控过失涉及诊断的情况下，不会出现可接受做法的问题，因此博勒姆和博利托原则不适用。高等法院驳回了这一论点，确认了博勒姆和博利托原则的适用性，并认定被告医院没有疏忽。最初，这一结果可能表明对医疗行业人士的持续尊重，但有人认为，另一种解读表明，有一种情况为在治疗和诊断行为的背景下重新考虑医患关系奠定了基础。
