|
There is no difficulty in analysing the duty of care of medical practitioners on the basis of a “single comprehensive duty" 12 covering diagnosis, treatment and the provision of information and advice, provided that it is stated in terms of sufficient generality. Thus, the general duty may be stated as a duty to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment. But the difficulty with that approach is that a statement of that kind says practically nothing - certainly, nothing worthwhile - as to the content of the duty. And it fails to take account of the considerable conceptual and practical differences between diagnosis and treatment, on the one hand, and the provision of information and advice, on the other.13
5. Important precedent applies in Australia and England by Bolam principle.
I think that F v R 14 is most important precedents for the High Court. The major principle stemming from the High Court decision is that a doctor is required to reveal a material risk. A risk may be regarded as material if a reasonable person in that patient’s position would attach significance to it. All the circumstances of case are relevant in determining whether a defendant breached the required standard of care. Those circumstances include common practice but if the court considers common practice inadequate or wrong, acting in accordance with it will not absolve the defendant from responsibility. F v R 15has important precedent at following significant factors: the personality and temperament of the patient and patient’s attitude; whether the patient wants more information; whether the patient asks questions; the patient’s level of understanding; the nature of the treatment; the magnitude of the possible harm; the likelihood of the risk; the general surrounding circumstances. 16 The High Court did not follow the Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee17 and Sidaway v bethlem hospital Governors 18 in the decision of this case. In short, The High Court rejected Bolam principle issue form two cases above.
|
