The leading authority on this point with regards to clinical negligence is Wilsher v Essex AHA [1986] 3 All ER 801 in which a junior doctor placed a catheter into a vein rather then an artery leading to an excess of oxygen in the young patient and, it was argued, subsequent blindness. The Court of Appeal dismissed the argument that a lower standard of care had to apply to those training within a profession. As [who]stated, in applying the Bolam test a uniformed standard of care had to be adopted otherwise: ‘….inexperience would frequently be urged as a defence to an action for professional negligence’. However, the court did go on to state that a junior doctor would not, necessarily, be in breach if they were to seek advice from a more senior/experienced colleague (as was, in fact, the case in Wilsher). Liability, in such cases, would then fall upon the more senior doctor for a lack of supervision.
Answer
Glidewell LJ
Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
The leading authority on this point with regards to clinical negligence is Wilsher v Essex AHA [1986] 3 All ER 801 in which a junior doctor placed a catheter into a vein rather then an artery leading to an excess of oxygen in the young patient and, it was argued, subsequent blindness. The Court of Appeal dismissed the argument that a lower standard of care had to apply to those training within a profession. As [who]stated, in applying the Bolam test a uniformed standard of care had to be adopted otherwise: ‘….inexperience would frequently be urged as a defence to an action for professional negligence’. However, the court did go on to state that a junior doctor would not, necessarily, be in breach if they were to seek advice from a more senior/experienced colleague (as was, in fact, the case in Wilsher). Liability, in such cases, would then fall upon the more senior doctor for a lack of supervision.
Answer
?
Tags
#clinical-negligence #negligence #tort
Question
The leading authority on this point with regards to clinical negligence is Wilsher v Essex AHA [1986] 3 All ER 801 in which a junior doctor placed a catheter into a vein rather then an artery leading to an excess of oxygen in the young patient and, it was argued, subsequent blindness. The Court of Appeal dismissed the argument that a lower standard of care had to apply to those training within a profession. As [who]stated, in applying the Bolam test a uniformed standard of care had to be adopted otherwise: ‘….inexperience would frequently be urged as a defence to an action for professional negligence’. However, the court did go on to state that a junior doctor would not, necessarily, be in breach if they were to seek advice from a more senior/experienced colleague (as was, in fact, the case in Wilsher). Liability, in such cases, would then fall upon the more senior doctor for a lack of supervision.
Answer
Glidewell LJ
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it ather then an artery leading to an excess of oxygen in the young patient and, it was argued, subsequent blindness. The Court of Appeal dismissed the argument that a lower standard of care had to apply to those training within a profession. As <span>Glidewell LJ stated, in applying the Bolam test a uniformed standard of care had to be adopted otherwise: ‘….inexperience would frequently be urged as a defence to an action for professional negligen
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.