Advertisement

Current and Future Evidence in Medical Malpractice

  • Peter Vanezis
  • Stephanie Prior
Chapter

Abstract

An overview of the principal procedures and tools that are made available to one who intends to bring legal proceedings in order to seek recognition and compensation for damage from medical malpractice in the United Kingdom is set out. A close examination is performed of multiple aspects characterizing the professional responsibility of the physician within the Common Law System, outlining new prospects for the sharing of biomedical knowledge among healthcare professionals, also through the use of biomedical platforms, with the aim of ensuring adequate performance and the promotion of continuous professional improvement. Finally, the proposal of a predetermined damage assessment system that allows the healthcare structures to fulfill the contractual obligation in case of violation of the same is discussed. The preventive quantification of damages from malpractice contained within a certain threshold and the timely admission of liability would allow the reduction of procedural expenses and, simultaneously, the speeding up of compensation procedures.

Cases, Legislation and Government Reports

  1. 1.
    Civil Procedure Rules 83rd update. 6 April 2016. Ministry of JusticeGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bolam –v- Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR582 QBDGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sidaway –v- Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital and Maudsley Hospital [1985] 2 WLR 480Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Montgomery –v- Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wilsher –v- Essex Health Authority [1986] 3 ALL ER 801Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bolitho –v- City and Hackney Health Authority [1993] 4 med LR 31 CA [1997] 4 ALL ER 771 HLGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cassidy –v- Ministry of Health and Others 1951 2 KB 343Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Woodland v Essex County Council [2013] UKSC 66Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    South Australia Asset Management Corporation –v- York Montague Limited (sub-nom Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA –v- Eagle Star Insurance Company Limited) [1997] 1 AC 191Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wilsher –v- Essex Health Authority [1987] 1 QB 730Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fairchild –v- Glenhaven Funeral Services Limited [2003] 1 AC 32Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dingle –v- Associated Newspapers Limited[1961] 2 QB 162Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hotson –v- East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] AC 750Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Greg –v- Scott [2005] 2 AC 176Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McFarlane –v- Tayside Health Board [2002]2 AC 59Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Keating P, Cambrosio A (eds) (2003) Biomedical Platforms—Realigning the Normal and the Pathological in Late-Twentieth-Century Medicine. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lancet Oncology (2015) Undermining the hippocratic oath: the Medical Innovation Lancet Oncol. 2015 Jan;16(1):1Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Doctors sign letter of opposition to Medical Innovation Bill (2014) Cancer Research UK. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-us/cancer-news/news-report/2014-11-13-doctors-sign-letter-of-opposition-to-medical-innovation-bill. Accessed May 2016
  20. 20.
    Medical innovation. The Times (Letter). 13 November 2014Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ross N (2014). The Saatchi Bill: can a PR guru cure cancer? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/saatchi-bill/10870505/The-Saatchi-Bill-can-a-PR-guru-cure-cancer.html. Accessed May 2016

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cameron Forensic Medical Sciences, Clinical PharmacologyWilliam Harvey Research Institute, Queen Mary University of LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Osbornes Solicitors LLPLondonUK

Personalised recommendations