• Home
• Order now
• Prices
• How we help
• Press
• Law marking
• Contact us
• Resources
• Log in

Medical Law Cases

Use these popular medical law cases to help you write law essays, dissertations and pieces of law coursework.

Bolam V Friern hospital Management Committee (1957) WLR 582

Medical negligence

This case has become popular because it established a separate standard of test for medical negligence from that of a reasonable man test in other tort cases.

In this case, Bolam, a mental health patient, was advised to undergo electro convulsive therapy (ECT). Though there is varied opinion as to desirability to warn client of risk involved in the process at that time, he was not warned of the risk of fracture, the use of relevant drugs and physical restraint necessary. As a result, Bolam sustained fractured hip during this treatment and claimed for negligence.

In a claim for negligence, the court held that it is sufficient if the skill exercised is in accordance with accepted practice by 'responsible body of medical men' skilled in that particular art. This means that when the defendant is a doctor, to determine his or her liability for medical negligence, the test of a reasonable man is substituted for that of another doctor conducting the same practice.

---

Bolitho V City and Hackney HA (1997) 4 ALL ER 771

Medical negligence

A medical practitioner may become liable in negligence when expert opinion in his favour fails to comply with logical reasons.

A 2 year old boy suffered severe brain damage after a paediatric registrar failed to attend to him. It was shown that even if the boy had been attended to, he would not have been intubated. Intubation is the only medical solution to resuscitating patients with respiratory failure by passing pipe into the windpipe. There was opposing expert opinion as to the reasonableness of the registrar's failure to intubate the boy. Either position supporting the prosecution or the defence. The registrar was not found liable because there were views supporting his action.

The court said that medical practitioner should not escape liability for negligence only because they led evidence from medical experts accepting that the acts complained of complied with accepted medical practice. The medical practitioner must act responsible, reasonable and respectable. This means that whenever expert arguing such practice as acceptable must "demonstrate that such opinion has a logical basis especially in cases involving the weighing of risks against benefits".

---

Janaway V. Salford Health Authority (1989) AC 537

Conscientious objection

Conscientious objection defence under Section 4 (1) of the Abortion Act 1967 applied only to persons who are actually involved in the abortion operation the.

In this case, a secretary was requested to type a letter which referred a patient to a consultant in regards termination of the client's pregnancy. She refused to carry out the doctor's instruction claiming conscientious objection under section 4 (1) Abortion Act 1961. This section provided that "no person shall be under any duty, whether by contract or by any statutory or other legal requirement, to participate in any treatment authorised by this Act to which he has a conscientious objection."

The court held that natural meaning of "participate in" should be given to it. It means taking part in the treatment for the purpose of termination the abortion.

---

Gillick V. Norfolk Health Authority (1985) 3 ALL ER 402

Medical Law

The court adopted a mixture of statute and functional approach deciding that when treating or prescribing treatment for children aged below the age of 16, doctors may not require parental consent when the child understands the nature and implication of the treatments.

This case for a declaration that the Department of Health and Social Services guidance to doctors that they may, in exceptional circumstances, give contraceptive advice and prescriptions to young girls under the age of 16 years old without their parent's consent is unlawful as the parent's consent is necessary.

The court held that a child under the age of 16 has legal capacity and can validly consent to even contraceptive treatment "provided the patient, whether a boy or a girl is capable of understanding what is proposed, and of expressing his or her own wishes". The need for parental consent expires when the child achieves sufficient understanding to make his own decisions. Provided the doctor is satisfied that: (a) The child understands his advice, (b) the child cannot be persuaded to tell her parents, (c) that she is likely to have intercourse without contraception again, (d) that she will suffer further physical and mental health problem unless prescription is made for the treatment, (e) that the treatment was in her best interest without knowledge of her parents.

---

B V. Croydon Health Authority (1995) 1 ALL ER 683

Medical law

Consent is required before treatment is undertaken. However, section 63 of the Mental Health Act 1983 provides an exception where such treatment was forced on a mental health patient under the direction of a responsible medical officer.

The applicant suffers from a psychopathic disorder and was compulsorily detained in hospital under section 3 of the Act. Her symptom was harming herself. When she stopped eating and lost weight below a dangerous level, nasogastric feeding was recommended. She applied for an injunction restraining her from being forcefully fed without her consent.

It was held that treatment within the wording of section 63 of the Act constitutes "treatment calculated to alleviate or prevent the deterioration of mental disorder from which the patient was suffering and includes such acts which prevented the patient from harming herself or which alleviates the symptom of disorder."

Secure your law degree, order your medical law essay right now!

Copyright © Academic Answers Ltd. Academic Answers Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with Company Registration No: 4964706 VAT Registration No: 842417633 - Law Teacher - The law essay professionals