why in case of Roger v Whitaker, bolam principle was rejected
The Bolam principle was rejected in the case of Roger v Whitaker because it was deemed outdated and not in line with current standards of medical practice. The Bolam principle, established in the case of Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee, states that a medical professional will not be negligent if their actions are in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion.
In the Roger v Whitaker case, the Court felt that the Bolam principle did not adequately protect patients' rights to make informed decisions about their treatment. The case involved a patient who was considering undergoing an eye operation that carried a risk of blindness. The patient requested that the surgeon provide information about the likelihood of the risk occurring, but the surgeon failed to disclose this information. As a result, the patient suffered complications from the surgery.
The Court held that the patient had a right to be fully informed about the risks of the procedure and that the Bolam principle did not excuse the surgeon from providing this information. It was ruled that a doctor has a duty to disclose all material risks associated with a procedure, and the patient has the right to make an informed decision based on that information.
Therefore, in this case, the Court rejected the Bolam principle in favor of a more patient-centered approach that prioritized informed consent and the patient's right to be fully informed about the risks of a medical procedure.
In the case of Roger v Whitaker, the Bolam principle was rejected for several reasons. The Bolam principle, also known as the Bolam test, is a legal standard used in medical negligence cases to determine whether a healthcare professional has breached their duty of care. According to this principle, a professional is not negligent if their actions are in line with a practice accepted by a responsible body of medical opinion.
However, in the case of Roger v Whitaker, the court rejected the Bolam principle due to the unique circumstances of the case. Here are some reasons why the court rejected the Bolam principle:
1. Lack of information disclosure: The court found that the medical professional failed to provide the patient with crucial information about the risks associated with the treatment. The court considered this failure an essential breach of duty, regardless of whether it was considered acceptable by a responsible body of medical opinion.
2. Patient's autonomy and consent: The court emphasized the importance of the patient's autonomy and the right to make informed decisions about their own healthcare. They held that it was necessary for medical professionals to provide patients with all relevant information, allowing them to make an informed choice about their treatment.
3. Special risk: The treatment in question involved a high-risk procedure with potential severe consequences. Given the high stakes involved, the court emphasized that it was essential for the medical professional to disclose all relevant risks to the patient, regardless of any accepted practices.
4. Evolving medical standards: The court considered that medical standards and practices evolve over time. They held that the Bolam principle should not be applied rigidly and that the standard of care should take into account current medical knowledge and advancements.
Therefore, in the case of Roger v Whitaker, the Bolam principle was rejected to uphold the patient's right to information, autonomy, and the evolving nature of medical practices and standards.