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).
Yes, I'm not suggesting that the courts will always ignore the reasonable standard of the time - the essence of Rogers v Whitaker I think is that the court reserves the _right_ to reject the professional bodies standard practice.
I do think GPs can use the Bolam test to define a reasonable standard of care, but that a legal case is judged on the basis of all the relevant facts pertaining to the particular case.
Certainly having a well defined professional standard and following it is a good start in any defence - but the fact that it can't be relied upon to win you every case leads to the strange tail wagging dog reasoning that Richard was referring to. Andrew _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
