Clinical negligence in the UK: Would it be safe to throw the baby out with the bath water

The clinical negligence system is the means by which patients who can be proved to have received unsatisfactory (i.e. negligent) medical care can receive compensation. Debate about the way in which the UK (and others) achieve this, and whether suitable alternatives are available, has never been far away from this understandably sensitive topic. Current policy debate illustrates the perceived causes for concern. In the past three months, the National Audit Office [6], a major public inquiry [5] and the Department of Health [2] have all criticised and identified areas for reform. Thus, the government describes clinical negligence in the UK as “slow and bureaucratic” and contributing, via its adversarial arrangements, to a “‘cover-up’ culture”. The Kennedy Report suggests that such litigation-induced paranoia contributed to a lack of transparency in the Bristol heart inquiry. The NAO’s research indicated that cases opened in 1999/00 took, on average, five and a half years to settle, and that 44% of the cases it sampled produced legal costs greater than the damages paid. Costs are “spiralling” [2] to £400 million in 1999/00. The case against the present system is clear cut.