Abstract

The progress made in diagnostic and therapeutic medicine has resulted in an increase in the number of malpractice suits brought against medical practitioners. To constitute negligence it must be shown that the conduct of the accused did not measure up to the standard of care the law required of him in the particular circumstances and that he acted with guilt and therefore can be blamed for the deed. This paper describes medical practitioner negligence and reviews relevant cases.

Highlights

  • The enormous progress made in diagnostic and therapeutic medicine in the past decades has resulted in an increase in the number of malpractice suits brought against medical practitioners

  • To constitute negligence it must be shown that the conduct of the accused did not measure up to the standard of care the law required of him in the particular circumstances and that he acted with guilt and can be blamed for the deed

  • In the case of Kruger v Coetzee, the appeal court expressed the test for negligence as follows

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The enormous progress made in diagnostic and therapeutic medicine in the past decades has resulted in an increase in the number of malpractice suits brought against medical practitioners. This has been due to various factors which include: the physician’s changing role in the community; legal aid becoming available to even the poor; the country becoming a democracy, with people aware of their rights; the recognition of self determination; the res ipsa loquitur principle, which moved the burden of proof to the practitioner; strict consent procedures; and the creation of higher patient expectations. It was concluded that the defendant should have foreseen the death of the child, all the more as he was an expert on herbs. He was found guilty of culpable homicide. The requirements for negligence are: (i) the possibility of the occurrence of the consequence should reasonably have been foreseen in the circumstances; (ii) reasonable guarding against the possibility should have been taken; and (iii) there is failure to take steps that should reasonably have been taken

Negligence and medical practitioners
Proof of negligence
Incorrect diagnosis
Foreign bodies
Vicarious liability
Cases cited
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.