Blah Blah Blah

571 Words3 Pages
A heavily debated notion driven from different perspectives has been the role of tort in medical negligence claims. If in both cases a doctor breaches his duty of care and the patient is worse off; what is the difference between 45% - 55% to stand in the way of recovering something the patient held as important and of value? Is it justified to declare one person a remedy and another not purely by their percentage points of recovery when medical uncertainty is a factor? Here, the answer is sought to whether there should be compensation for the loss of chance in medical negligence cases. Gregg is a prime example where perspectives have clashed concerning loss of chance. The 3:2 majority saw no legal acknowledgement of loss of chance but the judgements voiced concern of the legitimacy of the balance of probabilities. Lord Nicholls highlights the arbitrary nature of the 50% barrier restricting eligibility of claimants who had suffered as a result of medical negligence holding favour to patients having “a right to a remedy as much where his prospects of recovery were less than 50-50 as where they exceeded 50-50 ”. A moral consideration but arguments of policy considerations blocks concepts like this. Growing concern for the immunity held by professions saw developments in the law, however the loss of chance is yet to be clarified. The diverse nature of medicine and the hypothetical aspect of evidence relied upon means no one formula will ever be adequate for determining the duty owed and the extent on liability. This is all dependent on the individual traits of the case and the consequences which may be provoked from the judgements. Policy concerns restrict the liability of these professions to protect general interest and prevent ri... ... middle of paper ... ...ilo v City and Hackney Health Authority [1998] AC 232 Caparo v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 Chester v Afshar [2005] 1 AC 134 Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2003] 1 AC 32 Gregg v Scott [2005] UKHL 2, [2005] 4 All ER 812 Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53 Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] AC 750 Kitchen v Royal Air Force Association [1958] 1 WLR 563 Mulcany v Ministry of Defence [1996] QB 732 Majrowski v Guy’s and St. Thomas’s NHS Trust [2007] 1 AC 224 Osman v United Kingdom [2000] 29 EHRR 245 Philip v Ryan [2004] 1 IESC 105 Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205, [1994] 3 All ER 848 Sidaway v Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital [1985] 1 AC 871 Sienkenweiz v Greif (UK) Ltd [2011] 2 AC 229 Spring v Guardian Assurance [1995] 2 AC 296 Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] AC 1075 Statues National Health Service Act 2006

More about Blah Blah Blah

Open Document