Still they appear to be basing their standard on a legal opinion. This seems to me to be the tail wagging the dog. To some extent this opinion will be based on contemporary medical practice, which will no doubt be influenced by what the RACGP sets as a standard! Shouldnt we be setting standards ourselves?
Richard, In Australia, various courts have rejected what is known as the Bolam Test - a famous case in British tort law that established that standard professional practice can be used to establish the boundaries of duty of care. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolam_Test The Australian rejection of the Bolam test has occurred in various courts, but most prominently in Rogers v Whitaker 'that standard is not determined solely or even primarily by reference to the practice followed or supported by a responsible body of opinion in the relevant profession or trade'. This is not restricted to the medical profession - an architect can't point to standard architecture practice to define their duty of care either. So no, GP's cannot rely on the standards they set to define their duty of care. I'm sure the readers of this list have reasonably strong views with regards this - don't shoot me - I'm just the messenger! Andrew _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
