Beyond Bolam and Bolitho

Alasdair Maclean

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    The application of the Bolam test to cases of medical negligence has been the subject of prolonged criticism. The main source of discontent was the apparent judicial abdication of the power to determine the standard of care required to avoid negligence liability. In 1997, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, in Bolitho v City and Hackney HA, reaffirmed that power. Some commentators greeted this reaffirmation with talk of the 'new' Bolam and a 'revolution' in medical negligence litigation. It is now some four years since the Bolitho judgment and the courts have had ample opportunity to put the more interventionist policy into practice. In this article, I consider both the academic response to Bolitho and I analyse the subsequent 64 relevant medical negligence cases. I conclude that while judges appear more willing to question the expert this relates to issues of fact and credibility rather than the requisite standard in a normative sense.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)205-230
    Number of pages26
    JournalMedical Law International
    Volume5
    Issue number3
    Publication statusPublished - 2002

    Fingerprint

    credibility
    liability
    criticism
    expert

    Keywords

    • Medical negligence
    • Liability
    • Medical law

    Cite this

    Maclean, A. (2002). Beyond Bolam and Bolitho. Medical Law International, 5(3), 205-230.
    Maclean, Alasdair. / Beyond Bolam and Bolitho. In: Medical Law International. 2002 ; Vol. 5, No. 3. pp. 205-230.
    @article{8f0ce4ee741e42fd87a6751ed40cf8db,
    title = "Beyond Bolam and Bolitho",
    abstract = "The application of the Bolam test to cases of medical negligence has been the subject of prolonged criticism. The main source of discontent was the apparent judicial abdication of the power to determine the standard of care required to avoid negligence liability. In 1997, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, in Bolitho v City and Hackney HA, reaffirmed that power. Some commentators greeted this reaffirmation with talk of the 'new' Bolam and a 'revolution' in medical negligence litigation. It is now some four years since the Bolitho judgment and the courts have had ample opportunity to put the more interventionist policy into practice. In this article, I consider both the academic response to Bolitho and I analyse the subsequent 64 relevant medical negligence cases. I conclude that while judges appear more willing to question the expert this relates to issues of fact and credibility rather than the requisite standard in a normative sense.",
    keywords = "Medical negligence, Liability, Medical law",
    author = "Alasdair Maclean",
    note = "dc.publisher: AB Academic Publishers",
    year = "2002",
    language = "English",
    volume = "5",
    pages = "205--230",
    journal = "Medical Law International",
    issn = "0968-5332",
    publisher = "SAGE Publications",
    number = "3",

    }

    Maclean, A 2002, 'Beyond Bolam and Bolitho', Medical Law International, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 205-230.

    Beyond Bolam and Bolitho. / Maclean, Alasdair.

    In: Medical Law International, Vol. 5, No. 3, 2002, p. 205-230.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Beyond Bolam and Bolitho

    AU - Maclean, Alasdair

    N1 - dc.publisher: AB Academic Publishers

    PY - 2002

    Y1 - 2002

    N2 - The application of the Bolam test to cases of medical negligence has been the subject of prolonged criticism. The main source of discontent was the apparent judicial abdication of the power to determine the standard of care required to avoid negligence liability. In 1997, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, in Bolitho v City and Hackney HA, reaffirmed that power. Some commentators greeted this reaffirmation with talk of the 'new' Bolam and a 'revolution' in medical negligence litigation. It is now some four years since the Bolitho judgment and the courts have had ample opportunity to put the more interventionist policy into practice. In this article, I consider both the academic response to Bolitho and I analyse the subsequent 64 relevant medical negligence cases. I conclude that while judges appear more willing to question the expert this relates to issues of fact and credibility rather than the requisite standard in a normative sense.

    AB - The application of the Bolam test to cases of medical negligence has been the subject of prolonged criticism. The main source of discontent was the apparent judicial abdication of the power to determine the standard of care required to avoid negligence liability. In 1997, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, in Bolitho v City and Hackney HA, reaffirmed that power. Some commentators greeted this reaffirmation with talk of the 'new' Bolam and a 'revolution' in medical negligence litigation. It is now some four years since the Bolitho judgment and the courts have had ample opportunity to put the more interventionist policy into practice. In this article, I consider both the academic response to Bolitho and I analyse the subsequent 64 relevant medical negligence cases. I conclude that while judges appear more willing to question the expert this relates to issues of fact and credibility rather than the requisite standard in a normative sense.

    KW - Medical negligence

    KW - Liability

    KW - Medical law

    M3 - Article

    VL - 5

    SP - 205

    EP - 230

    JO - Medical Law International

    JF - Medical Law International

    SN - 0968-5332

    IS - 3

    ER -

    Maclean A. Beyond Bolam and Bolitho. Medical Law International. 2002;5(3):205-230.