Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T01:58:47.394Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

4. The Medical Malpraxis Position in the United Kingdom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2021

J.D.J. Havard
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Most medical practice in the United Kingdom is carried out within the National Health Service (NHS), which offers a comprehensive service essentially free of charge to all citizens. Courts of law cannot take the availability of free care into account in determining the level of damages to be awarded to the patient—in other words, in assessing the cost of putting right the damage sustained by the patient, it is assumed that the restorative treatment will be obtained privately. Nevertheless, the fact that the patient did not have to pay directly for the treatment in the first place is in itself a disincentive to bringing actions in negligence against a doctor or health authority. As Professor Miller has put it, “Since disposable income is not diminished by paying for medical services patients are less likely to express their unhappiness about unsatisfactory results in a manner that seeks monetary results.”

Type
Part III: The Health Care System
Information
Law, Medicine and Healthcare , Volume 14 , Issue 3-4 , September 1986 , pp. 175 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Miller, F.H., Medical Malpractice Legislation: Theories about Why the British Experience Differs from That of the U.S. (unpublished paper delivered to the American Bar Association meeting, London, July 1985), at 3.Google Scholar
General Medical Council, Professional Conduct and Discipline: Fitness to Practice (London, April 1985).Google Scholar
General Medical Council. Annual Report for 1985 (March 1986).Google Scholar
AMA Department of State Legislation, Standard of Care and Expert Witness Qualification (1985), at 2.Google Scholar
AMA Special Task Force on Professional Liability and Insurance, Professional Liability in the 80s (Report 2, 1984), at 20–21.Google Scholar
Whitehouse v. Jordan [1981] All ER 267, HL.Google Scholar
Crawford v. Board of Governors of Charing Cross Hospital, The Times, December 8, 1953.Google Scholar
Roe v. Ministry of Health [1954] All ER 131.Google Scholar
Williams v. North Liverpool HMC, The Times, January 17, 1959.Google Scholar
Moore v. Lewisham HMC, The Times, February 5, 1959.Google Scholar
Sidaway v. Bethlem Royal Hospital Governors and Others [1965] 1 All ER 643.Google Scholar
Lim Poh Choo v. Camden and Islington Area Health Authority [1979] 2 All ER 910, HL.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Report of the Secretary's Commission on Medical Malpractice (DS 73–78, 1973).Google Scholar
U.S. General Accounting Office, Medical Malpractice—No Agreement on the Problems or Solutions (Report on Congressional Requesters GAO HRD—86–50, February 1986), at 26.Google Scholar
Id. at 35.Google Scholar