Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.



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 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 negligence’. However, the court did go on to state that a junior doctor would not, necessarily, be in breach if [...] (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
they were to seek advice from a more senior/experienced colleague

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 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 negligence’. However, the court did go on to state that a junior doctor would not, necessarily, be in breach if [...] (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 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 negligence’. However, the court did go on to state that a junior doctor would not, necessarily, be in breach if [...] (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
they were to seek advice from a more senior/experienced colleague
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
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 <span>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.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Summary

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised 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.