Medical Negligence and medical malpractices are misconstrued as the same thing but both are different and are also distinguished in law. The term medical malpractices are a broad term that includes all types of irregular conduct by medical professional whereas medical negligence is the failure of a medical practitioner or a health care provider to provide proper care and attention and exercise those skills which are prudent, the qualified person would do under similar
Under our law, medical negligence, like other forms of negligence, is a criminal offence for which a doctor can even be imprisoned. This is so in many other legal systems also. But what amounts to medical negligence? Medical negligence occurs when a patient is harmed because a doctor has failed to perform competently under accepted standards of medical care. In order to prove medical negligence it must be shown that the doctor was negligent in some way .
It was generally known as the Bolam Test. This principle was derived from the case of Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee . Justice McNair stated that if the doctor is acting in accordance with the skills or practices that are accepted by a body or responsible medical men that are skilled in that particular art, the doctor will not be considered as negligent, merely because it is a body of such opinion that takes a contrary view . He had further described that the word “negligence” involves professional skills. The Bolam Test covers: 1.
There were 127 medical malpractice cases in Pennsylvania last year. An example of these cases could be an exploratory surgery to diagnose a patient and the incision became infected because the patient failed to clean the incision sight properly. Seems to me that the doctor was just doing his/her job but in the end, he/she got sued. Medical malpractice can be described as an act or omission by a doctor or physician that lead to the harm of a patient (Kindy). Certain laws and bills have been put in place to discourage people from suing doctors for problems that are completely out of the doctor’s hands.
For example, if the hospital will have cross-cutting and in the process will hire under board healthcare staffs and one of the staff is incompetent and caused an added injury to the patient, the hospital will be held liable and therefore can be punishable by law. This doctrine also protects the employees in the healthcare industry since it will be of benefit when the provider defends its own staff and at the
Any negligence by an act or omission of a medical practitioner in performing his/her duty is known as medical negligence. Medical negligence happens when the medical practitioner fails to provide the care which is expected in each case thus resulting in injury or death of the patient. It is important to know what constitutes medical negligence. A doctor owes certain duties to the patient who consults him for illness. A deficiency in this duty results in negligence.
Two distinguished consultants, a physician and a surgeon experienced in the treatment of chest diseases, formed a judgment as to what was, in their opinion, in the best interests of their patient... A case which is based on an allegation that a fully considered decision of two consultants in the field of their special skill was negligent clearly presents certain difficulties of proof. It is not enough to show that there is a body of professional opinion, equally competent, which supports the decision as reasonable in the sense that a responsible body of medical opinion would have accepted it as
Plaintiffs acknowledge, however, that their asserted right to refuse treatment is not absolute, and must yield to the Hospital's right to impose treatment in order to protect their safety or that of other patients and Hospital staff. Absent such emergency circumstances, plaintiffs maintain they are competent to decide whether or not to receive certain treatment, and that their decisions must be respected by Hospital staff. As for the seclusion issue, plaintiffs maintain that state law permitted defendants to restrain patients in seclusion rooms only when there was a substantial threat of physical harm to patients or staff.  Plaintiffs allege that, notwithstanding such statutory *1353 proscription, defendants routinely employed seclusion as a treatment modality, and not merely as an emergency
The standard of care established in Donoghue v Stevenson could have been restricted and only applicable to the manufacturers of food and beverages who should have a duty of care towards the consumers. Notwithstanding, the court have decided to apply the guideline laid down in Donoghue v Stevenson to circumstances where duty of care is required. It is, therefore, the standard of Donoghue v Stevenson has been extended to include healthcare professionals who is expected to owe a duty of care towards the patients. In medical case, the focal inquiry that emerges is regardless of whether a specialist has accomplished the standard of care that is needed by law. The anticipated standard is of “reasonable care”.
There is a professional standards of practice to guide them in preventing harm. Hospital staff should sensibly ensure that no harm comes to a patient under their care. To withhold necessary treatments from violent patients simply imply that there is an intention to cause harm, perhaps, indirectly (Staunton & Chiarella, 2017). In law, there are three elements that constitute a negligent action - the duty of care is owed to the patient, the duty of care has been breached through inaction, and through this inaction, physical or financial harm has been caused. The negligence demonstrated in withholding treatment shows that the hospital staff’s inaction is below the expected standard.