The legal and ethical aspects of telemedicine. 3: Telemedicine and malpractice

Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 72-79

  Stanberry, Ben ^a  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; LEGAL APPROACH; LEGAL ASPECT; MALPRACTICE; MEDICAL ETHICS; PROFESSIONAL PATIENT RELATIONSHIP; STANDARD; TELEMEDICINE; TREATMENT REFUSAL;

LEGAL APPROACH; PROFESSIONAL PATIENT RELATIONSHIP;

CONSENT FORMS; ETHICS, MEDICAL; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MALPRACTICE; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE; TELEMEDICINE; TREATMENT REFUSAL;

EID: 0031608422     PISSN: 1357633X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1258/1357633981931984     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. 94 LJKB 791 at 794
2. [1968] 1 All ER 1068. This case is discussed further, under 'Cause of damage'
3. Moreover, where an adult is unconscious and unable to request medical treatment, the courts will imply the necessary request for treatment, unless there has already been some valid, express statement to the contrary by the patient (Re F (a mental patient: sterilisation) [1990] 2 AC 1, [1989] All ER 545 (HL))
4. (1856) 11 Ex Ch 781
5. (1957) 1 WLR 582
6. Ibid., at 587-8
7. Maynard v. West Midlands RHA [1984] 1 WLR 634 at 639
8. Per Lord Bridge, expressly approving the dicta of Sir John Donaldson, the Master of the Rolls in the Court of Appeal in Sidaway v. Board of Governors of the Bethlehem and the Maudsley Hospital [1985] 2 WLR 480 at 505
9. Nettleship v. Weston [1971] 2 QB 691 and Wilsher v. Essex Area Health Authority [1986] 3 All ER 801
10. It is questionable, though, whether a junior doctor who seeks advice from the supervising consultant has discharged his or her duty: see Jones v. Manchester Corporation [1952] 2 QB 852 at 871 and Wilsher v. Essex Area Health Authority (op. cit. ref. 9)
11. Whiteford v. Hunter (1950) 94 Sol J 758 (HL); Crawford v. Board of Governors of Charing Cross Hospital [1953] The Times, 8 December (CA)
12. Hunter v. Hanley (1955) SLT 213 at 217
13. Newton v. Newton's New Model Laundry [1959] The Times, 3 November
14. Wood v. Thurston [1951] The Times, 25 May
15. Langley v. Campbell [1975] The Times, 6 November; see also Tuffil v. East Surrey Area Health Authority [1978] The Times, 15 March, where doctors failed to test for amoebic dysentery in a patient who had spent many years in the tropics
16. [1938] 1 All ER 566
17. [1985] 1 All ER 643 at 660
18. Bolam v. Friem Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582 at 586
19. Maynard v, West Midlands RHA [1984] 1 WLR 634 at 638
20. [1942] 2 All ER 237. See also Razzel v. Snowball [1954] 3 All ER 429
21. Section 53 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 provides that 'Where a United Kingdom ship does not carry a doctor among the seamen employed in it the master shall make arrangements for securing that any medical attention on board the ship is given either by him or under his supervision by a person appointed by him for the purpose.' The global standards (which define the levels of training and first aid) set by the International Maritime Organization (IMO)/International Labour Organization (ILO) joint training recommendations, the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended in 1995, and ILO Convention 164 on Health Protection and Medical Care (Seafarers) 1987 are useful (even though they are general requirements) in helping to define a common set of training standards which can be improved and then incorporated into appropriate training manuals and courses for ship's officers. The European Council Directive 92/29/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the minimum safety and health requirements for improved medical treatment on vessels gives instructions on the required range of drugs and medical instruments on board, the standard of first-aid skills of seafarers and their medical training and on the regulations on advice given by radio. See further on this topic Patel T. Review of Current Medical Training Procedures and Practices. Cardiff: Seafarers International Research Centre, 1997
22. Re R (a minor) [1991] 4 All ER 177; Re J (a minor) (medical treatment) [1992] 4 All ER 614; Re T [1992] 4 All ER 649
23. [1991] 4 All ER 614
24. General Medical Council. The Duties of a Doctor: Guidance from the General Medical Council. London: GMC, 1995: 4
25. Allan v. New Mount Sinai Hospital (1980) 109 DLR (3d) 536; Wilson v. Pringle [1986] 3 WLR 1 (CA)
26. (1990) 2 AC 1
27. See the dicta of Chief Justice Chisholm in Marshall v. Curry [1933] 3 DLR 260 at 275
28. Canterbury v. Spence (1972) 464 F 2d 772 at 789 per Robinson J; Bonner v. Moran (1941) 126 F 2d 121 at 122-3; per Lord Justice Croom-Johnson in Wilson v. Pringle [1987] QB 237
29. (1986) 2 SCR 388 (Supreme Court of Canada)
30. Re F (mental patient) (sterilisation) [1990] 2 AC 1, (1989) 4 BMLR 1 (HL)
31. [1992] 4 All ER 649