This case is somewhat similar to Adderly v. Bremner which defined the GP in this case as being negligent in not having changed syringes to vaccinate 38 patients. What occurred instead was the GP used one main needle for every two patients which promoted the idea of liability onto this GP. This is due to the fact that some of the patients were infected with septicaemia (blood poisoning) due to this judgemental error by the attending GP. It also defines the fact that the GP did not provide the required standard of care that was expected of him by the patients. In retrospect it would seem that any reasonable GP would have in fact changed the syringes after each patient to avoid the adverse consequences which transpired. Therefore the GP only has himself to blame for the negativities that arose out of this case (Picard, 1984, p.25). Furthermore, according to the information within the case the GP did not follow the instructions that accompanied the vaccine, which provided emphases onto the fact that a sterile needle and syringe were required to be utilized for each patient. There in this case shows an example of how a GP who does not follow orders illustrates un-professionalism and therefore risks life’s of the innocent patients. Dr. Evil is just as guilty as this GP as he followed similar steps which lead to an adverse outcome for his patient so therefore he can face severe consequences according to the tort of laws (Brooten 1987, p. 1). Breach of duty essentially means that the defendant here Dr. Evil has fallen below the standard of behaviour expected in someone undertaking the activity concerned, so therefore for bad medical treatment here is the breach of duty owed by the doctors to the patients That Dr. Evil owed Rowan a duty of care, he broke the duty. So therefore patient suffered as a result. There is no liability if patient has not suffered. Dr. Evil did cause this harm if he was more up- to – date then Rowan would not have suffered.
Case 2: Treatment of Gwyneth through Dr. Smith
This particular case finds that regardless of Dr. Smith’s inexperience in caring for patients he sill should have had the required knowledge and expert skills to properly treat this patient. GP’s or Emergency room doctors go through a battery of extremely difficult medical tests to ensure that they have acquired the necessary medical skills that they need to treat people efficiently and with high quality care. Dr. Smith’s patient was left to suffer due to his “medical negligence” in his care.
In a hospital environment the hospital authority is suppose to guarantee that emergency room doctors or any practicing physician has necessary skills to treat patients, as has been stated. For instance in this type of environment there must be a way to strictly enforce that every GP or physician has been appropriately trained and has specific knowledge of some form of health care law and also of complaints procedures and civil litigation practice so that they will show extra care and consideration in their care of patients. Also, there should be an implementation of clinical governance so that there is good reliability of accepted standards and that audits and routine management are monitored. Perhaps if this type of involvement would have been carried out during the treatment of this patient there would not have been an adverse outcome so Dr. Smith is not the only one at fault for negligence here. Dr. Smith is therefore not the only one who is liable for the negligence in treating the patient. It could very well also be the paramedics who brought the patient in, the governing management body over the treatment and other nursing personnel who over saw the administering of certain medical need of the patient as well (Bailey & Bowman 2000, p. 85). The doctor was also inexperienced and did not monitor the oxygen. Every qualified doctor must show the same ability as each other. It makes no difference how long they have been qualified on the other hand a consultant is expected to be more competent and to achieve the standard of a consultant but a new consultant is judged as the same way as an experienced one. The law does not expect a junior doctor to be as skilled as a consultant. As we have seen in the case of Djemal v Bexley heath health authority the hospital has a duty to ensure that the junior doctor is supervised when required so the standard of care reaches a good level.
The case of Dr. Andrew Holt can be compared to this one as this doctor seemed to lack sufficient knowledge to care for the children who were suffering with cardiac problems and of which he caused more problems by prescribing the incorrect drugs to treat the children. It was stated that due to his lack of educational training (which can be compared with Dr. Smith), these children suffered severe adverse outcomes in their health which could have easily been prevented (Hazelton 2005). This shows that as has been stated, the training doctors go through is meant to safely guard and protect patients by ensuring the doctors are adequately trained and armed with a full body of knowledge to know how to proceed in cases such as with Gwyneth and the one that has been included in this literature. Without this form of knowledge there are going to exist judgmental errors which lead to cases of “medical negligence” and malpractice lawsuits in the long run. This is something that should be avoided at all costs; however for Dr. Smith it is too late.
Treatment of Jerry through Dr. Baron
Jerry died under Dr. Baron’s medical care then there is no doubt that this doctor will be subjected to medical negligence due to the fact that he failed to have any form of consent to try a new experimental heart surgery. If he had followed the proper protocol the outcome that occurred probably would have never taken place but because he believed it was the correct procedure to carry out the consequences where disastrous. For instance, cases where consent by the patient is the issue (such as this one) can be very risky as medical negligence can be linked to a number of cases of which consent was granted yet the result was not what the patient wanted, or in some cases they die as has been stated (Filkins 2001, p. 467). In this apparent case Jerry died due to the experimental surgery that was done. An essential component of an action in negligence against a doctor is proof that the doctor failed to provide the required standard of care under the circumstances. Traditionally the standard of care in law has been determined according to the Bolam test. This is based on the principle that a doctor does not breach the legal standard of care, and is therefore not negligent, if the practice is supported by a responsible body of similar professionals. The Bolam principle, however, has been perceived as being excessively reliant upon medical testimony supporting the defendant. The judgment given by the House of Lords in the recent case of Bolitho imposes a requirement that the standard proclaimed must be justified on a logical basis and must have considered the risks and benefits of competing options. The effect of Bolitho is that the court will take a more enquiring stance to test the medical evidence offered by both parties in litigation, in order to reach its own conclusions. Recent case law shows how the court has applied the Bolitho approach in determining the standard of care in cases of clinical negligence. An understanding of this approach and of the shift from the traditional Bolam test is relevant to all medical practitioners, particularly in a climate that is increasingly litigious. A case that could be compared is one where a patient did not give consent to try a new drug for the treatment of gastroenteritis and due to the GP prescribing it anyway (without the patient being aware it was a new drug) there were adverse repercussions in the individuals health because of it. Although this patient did not die it shows that following through with a medical procedure or treatment without consent by a patient can lead the GP or in the subsequent case (the surgeon Dr. Baron) down the road of medical negligence and malpractice (Whitting 2002, p. 191). Thereby Dr. Baron is wholly liable for the patients’ death and it can be proven that negligence to follow the correct protocol is involved, including a lack of consent to try the new procedure from a family member or other personal contact of Jerry’s.
To summarize these three cases the facts of medical negligence and possible liability is quite clear in all three of them. Within the medical world there are now strict guidelines that physicians and all medical personnel must follow in order to avoid being faced with negligence charges from previous patients or family members. If the health care system is going to promote high quality care then they need to ensure that patient consent, training, comprehension of the medical environment/medical tools, and a strong knowledge of the law is coherent among all professional medical providers or otherwise lawsuits, and the risk of liability will escalate within the profession as these three cases have shown to be at fault for creating.
Works Cited
Bailey, S.H. & Bowman, M.J. “Public Authority Negligence Revisited.” Cambridge Law Journal 59 (2000): 85-132.
Brooten, Kenneth. Malpractice: A Guide to Avoidance and Treatment. Orlando: Grune & Straton Incorporated (1987).
Filkins, James. “With no Evil Intent.”: The Criminal Prosecution of Physicians for Medical Negligence.” Journal of Legal Medicine 22 (2001): 467-499.
Hazelton, Liz. “GMC Meets over Bogus Neurologist.” The Evening Telegraph (2005): 1.
Picard, Ellen I. “Legal Liability of Doctors and Hospitals in Canada.” 2nd Ed. Toronto, Ont.: The Carswell Company Limited (1984): 25-29.
Whitting, Christian. “Physical Damage in Negligence.” Cambridge University Press 61 (2002): 189-208
Salma Miskeen.
