Skip to main content

Medical Responsibility and Liability in the United Kingdom

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Malpractice and Medical Liability

Abstract

The first section of the chapter offers an overview of the Medical Acts which regulate medical liability in the context of the UK’s common law system, along with a description of the types of enquiries carried out and the recent trends in the number of claims made in the UK. The second section of the chapter examines the diverse judicial and extra-judicial institutions and operative roles in the UK, with emphasis on the assessment of alleged medical negligence cases by doctors and others, legal procedures, no-fault compensations and the Civil Procedure rules of 1998. The third section of the chapter describes the ascertainment methodology in living persons and cadavers, while the fourth section discusses the evaluation methodology, including the standard of care, causation––the “but-for” test and the doctrine of material contribution––and the forensic use of clinical guidelines. This chapter ends by discussing the future perspectives and probable reformations that will occur in the regulations governing the assessment of medical liability in the UK.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Action against medical accidents. www.avma.org.uk. Accessed May 2011

  • Black D (1998) The limitations of evidence. J R Coll Phys Lond 32:23

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Council for healthcare regulatory excellence. www.chre.org.uk. Accessed May 2011

  • Department of Health (2003) Making amends: a consultation paper setting out proposals for reforming the approach to clinical negligence in the NHS. DoH, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer C (1994) Anaesthetist loses final appeal. BMJ 309:78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster C (1998) Civil procedure, trial issues and guidelines’ in guidelines: law, policy and practice, vol 12. Foster and Tingle, London, pp 111–120

    Google Scholar 

  • General medical council at www.gmc-uk.org. Accessed May 2011

  • Hughes G (2009) Litigation, redress and making amends. Emerg Med J 26:844

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hurwitz B (2004) How does evidence based guidance influence determinations of medical negligence? BMJ 329:1024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maclean S (1988) No fault liability in medical responsibility. In: Freeman M (ed) Medicine, ethics and the law. Williams S Heinne & Co, Littleton, Colorado, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • National institute for health and clinical excellence. www.nice.org.uk. Accessed May 2011

  • Samanta A, Samanta J, Gunn M (2003) Legal considerations of guidelines: will NICE make a difference? J R Coll Phys Lond 96(3):133–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith DM (2004) The Shipman inquiry fifth report: safeguarding patients: lessons from the past–proposals for the future. In: Command paper Cm 6394, 9 Dec 2004

    Google Scholar 

  • The Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry (2001) The inquiry into the management of care of children receiving complex heart surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary. Bristol Royal Infirmary, Crown Copyright, Bristol, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • The care quality commission. www.cqc.org.uk. Accessed May 2011

  • The National Health Service Litigation Authority (2010). Report and Accounts, TSO, London

    Google Scholar 

  • The patient’s association. www.patients-association.com. Accessed May 2011

Cases Cited

  • Bailey v Ministry of Defence and Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust (2008) EWCA Civ 883

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnet v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1969) QB 428

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) 1 WLR 582

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolitho v. City and Hackney Health Authority (1997) 4 All ER 771

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw (1956) AC 613

    Google Scholar 

  • McGhee c (1972) National Coal Board 3 All ER 1008

    Google Scholar 

  • R v Adomako (1994) 3 WLR 288

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Vanezis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Vanezis, P. (2013). Medical Responsibility and Liability in the United Kingdom. In: Ferrara, S., Boscolo-Berto, R., Viel, G. (eds) Malpractice and Medical Liability. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35831-9_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics