On Tuesday 13 March 2007 00:06, Andrew Patterson 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).
>
> 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.
the woman also asked if there was a risk to her good eye, and was not told
what the risk was.
> > 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.
most correct answer
--
<stu> Stupid nick highlighting
<stu> Whenever someone starts with "stupid" it highlights the nick. Hmm.
-- #Debian
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
