The doctor in a minority.

Abstract

Suppose that a doctor carrying out a treatment or advising on a treatment or acting as an expert in litigation or writing or lecturing about a treatment is in a minority so far as contemporary medical opinion is concerned. It may be a matter of choice for the doctor between treatment A (the majority practice) or treatment B (the minority practice), and the minority treatment may be of an innovative character. Unfortunately, things went badly wrong, the patient suffered harm and the doctor finds him/herself a defendant in a case for clinical negligence. What is the legal duty of the doctor? Is it sufficient that he/she acted in good faith? Or that he/she was a competent doctor? Or that he/she was a doctor following the practice of a substantial number of doctors, albeit a minority? Or that he/she was in effect acting 'on his/her own'? The legal test is: Was the doctor following the practice of a responsible body of medical clinical opinion, albeit a minority opinion? Medicine has made huge advances over the years - one of the great achievements. But many advances have come about because of the initiative of one individual or a small group of individuals, often in the face of strong disbelief or opposition. The medical profession is a conservative profession, understandably so in view of the obvious inherent risks. Original ideas may not be well received. Therefore, the minority innovative doctor must proceed carefully because he/she runs the risk of a medical mishap, criticism and litigation.