The Medical Innovation Act, often referred to as the Saatchi Act, is probably the biggest change in the medical negligence law that many people will see, but has been criticized and hesitated. The bill reached its final stage before the royal family agreed, but the parliament was approved and the bill did not make further progress. Then we saw that it was renamed Chris Heaton-Harris as the Medical Treatment [Innovation] Act, which passed its bill as a private member to the House of Lords. The parliamentary meeting is over again and the bill has not been carried out, but it raises the question of whether we need this bill.
The bill covers the plausibility tests that all doctors must now follow in Bolam's common law tests, which was later added by Bolitho. All doctors are subject to this test if they face a medical negligence claim. In order to go beyond testing, doctors must prove that their actions are in accordance with the practices accepted by the person in charge of the medical staff. The test came from Bolam and was severely criticized for preventing doctors from escaping remedies. Bolitho slightly modified the medical negligence test because doctors must now provide a reasonable explanation for their controversial behavior. These tests for medical neurology are often criticized as doctors and medical institutions that lead to too cautious, they can try alternative treatments, or use them out of the box. Because of concerns about medical negligence and treatment of patients, some believe that new legislation should be implemented so that doctors can avoid medical negligence claims when acting in good faith.
The new bill will enable the Secretary of State for Health to establish a database of medical innovation treatments. The database is set to contain a successful record, so doctors using the listed innovative treatments will also fail.
In addition, if the bill proves that their actions are responsible, then the bill will allow doctors to deviate from standard practices. In some ways, the bill can prove to be sticking to the old "Bolam." Testing, in a sense, it will list a series of steps a doctor can follow to prove that they have not committed medical negligence. One of them is to obtain evidence from a responsible agency' medical opinion, they agree with the doctor's behavior, and do not think they are acting irresponsibly'. The Bill is not intended to replace the current medical negligence test, but to provide doctors with another way to evade their responsibility for medical negligence when deviating from standard practices.
A common argument among those who oppose the Medical [Innovation] Act is that they worry that doctors can experiment with experimental treatment when effective treatments are available. This argument seems to be somewhat restrictive because illegal doctors can prove that this is indeed a responsible act. There appears to be a lack of balance between the two sides of the medical negligence scale, those who are eager to deviate from standard practices and attributable to fear of claims, and fear that the bill will lead to more negligent treatment and irresponsible medical professions. Both medical innovation bills have failed, but the bill will reappear soon, which seems inevitable.
Orignal From: Medical Negligence and Medical Innovation Act
No comments:
Post a Comment