In five pages the Bolam rule and various cases are considered in this overview of the United Kingdom and the issue of medical negligence. Seven sources are cited in the bibliography.
Name of Research Paper File: RT13_SA152UK.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
construed as negligence, but they seldom use it. This statement may be backed up with a look at a variety of court cases. Legislation in Europe has used guidelines
and for example, the UKs Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 had established regulatory authority to develop guidelines (Hurwitz, Eccles & Grinshaw, 1999). UK law states that only three embryos
may be placed in a womans womb (1999). This law is obviously made in order to avoid the problem of a high risk pregnancy. In the U.S. for example, there
have been many couples to be blessed with five, six or seven children at once. This is a very high risk situation for the mother and babies. In the UK,
it is resolved by disallowing such implantations. Yet, even though the law exists, its effect does not preclude a woman who is harmed from such a procedure from suing. At
the same time, if doctors follow guidelines they will be shielded from blame to an extent, even if something goes wrong. One might ask why a doctor might be
blamed if they follow proper procedure. Even if doctors in the UK go by the book, they may be sued. Bolam is the case often cited to explain this. The
judge in Bolam ruled that there can be two or more schools of thought in respect to prior methodology in treatment (Hurwitz, Eccles & Grinshaw, 1999). That also means that
doctors can rebut a charge of negligence if they conform with a body of responsible doctors (1999). In other words, Bolam muddies the waters. More specifically, in Bolam v.
Friern Hospital Committee [1957] 2 All E.R. 118,122, Judge McNair said: "A doctor is not guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper