Ian Cheong wrote:
I don't think the Bolam Test is explicitly rejected for all time. More like the Bolam test was rejected in Rogers V Whitaker, because it was outweighed by a duty to warn of potentially serious complications - ie that loss of an eye (in I think a one-eyed person) was a material risk in knowing that it was not a risk generally warned (rare and non-crucial in two-eyed people).
iirc i thought she had the bad eye op'd and got sympathetic opthalmitis in her "good" eye, and was thus blinded, having specifically asked if there was a chance of losing her vision
game over ash _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
