The Gynæcologist and the Law

DURING the early years of the Health Service damages awarded in the courts for negligence increased to an alarming degree. There were at least three factors contributing to this state of affairs-the introduction of free legal aid, certain changes in the law relating to the liabilities of hospitals for the negligence of their staffs, and a perhaps understandable view by the general public that damages were now coming "off a broad back." Since 1953, however, it seems to have become less easy to recover damages; there have been a number of judicial opinions expressed recently which are encouraging to the medical profession, to the effect that a doctor should not be held liable for negligence merely because some mishap occurs. Professional negligence can be defined in a number of different ways, but a simple definition is failure to exercise a reasonable degree of skill and care during the treatment of a patient. The law imposes on certain persons a duty to take care, and a doctor is one of them; once he undertakes the responsibility of treating a patient he assumes "a duty of care," and in law he will be expected to attain the standard of a reasonably skilful and careful member of his profession. Most cases will be judged on their own merits. For instance, a consultant practising in his own speciality wvill be held liable for negligence in respect of treatment which in a general practitioner or a junior member of the profession might be regarded as quite satisfactory; his standards must be those of a reasonably skilful and careful consultant. It also seems fairly definite that all doctors, and particularly those who specialise, will be expected to keep abreast of modern developments and new techniques. It is unlikely that any one of us will be liable if damage could have been averted only after reading a particular article in a medical journal, but we would be expected to know, for example, if a drug or clinical method had been tried out and found to carry special dangers or disadvantages. We are, of course, entitled to adopt our own methods of treatment even if they do not meet with universal approval, so long as they are approved by a substantial proportion of our colleagues and are carried out with reasonable skill and care. What of the cases in which we fail? In parts of the United Kingdom …