The patient presented with symptoms of tuberculosis but both the consultant physician and the consultant surgeon took the view that Hodgkin's disease, carcinoma, and sarcoidosis were also possibilities, the first of which if present would have required remedial steps to be taken in its early stages. Instead of waiting for the results of the sputum tests, the consultants carried out a mediastinoscopy to get a biopsy. The inherent risk of damage was to the left laryngeal recurrent nerve, even if the operation was properly done. In the event, only tuberculosis was confirmed. Unfortunately, the risk became a reality and the patient suffered a paralysis of the left vocal cord. The decision of the physician and the surgeon to proceed was said by their expert peers to be reasonable in all the circumstances.
The trial judge initially held that the surgeon had been negligent for failing to use a different surgical technique that was advocated by one group of medical experts. However, the House of Lords reversed the decision, stating that differences of opinion and practice within the medical profession are inevitable, and that a court's preference for one medical opinion over another is not a basis for finding negligence. This decision reaffirmed the Bolam principle, which holds that a doctor will not be considered negligent if they have acted in accordance with a responsible body of medical opinion.
maynard, west, midlands, regional, this, article, does, cite, sources, please, help, improve, this, article, adding, citations, reliable, sources, unsourced, material, challenged, removed, find, sources, news, newspapers, books, scholar, jstor, february, 2008,. This article does not cite any sources Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources Unsourced material may be challenged and removed Find sources Maynard v West Midlands Regional HA news newspapers books scholar JSTOR February 2008 Learn how and when to remove this template message Maynard v West Midlands Regional Health Authority 1985 1 All ER 635 is an English tort law case concerning the Bolam test for professional negligence The patient presented with symptoms of tuberculosis but both the consultant physician and the consultant surgeon took the view that Hodgkin s disease carcinoma and sarcoidosis were also possibilities the first of which if present would have required remedial steps to be taken in its early stages Instead of waiting for the results of the sputum tests the consultants carried out a mediastinoscopy to get a biopsy The inherent risk of damage was to the left laryngeal recurrent nerve even if the operation was properly done In the event only tuberculosis was confirmed Unfortunately the risk became a reality and the patient suffered a paralysis of the left vocal cord The decision of the physician and the surgeon to proceed was said by their expert peers to be reasonable in all the circumstances The trial judge initially held that the surgeon had been negligent for failing to use a different surgical technique that was advocated by one group of medical experts However the House of Lords reversed the decision stating that differences of opinion and practice within the medical profession are inevitable and that a court s preference for one medical opinion over another is not a basis for finding negligence This decision reaffirmed the Bolam principle which holds that a doctor will not be considered negligent if they have acted in accordance with a responsible body of medical opinion See also EditNegligenceNotes Edit nbsp nbsp This article relating to law in the United Kingdom or its constituent jurisdictions is a stub You can help Wikipedia by expanding it vte Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Maynard v West Midlands Regional HA amp oldid 1149077646, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
