This rule is known as the Bolam test, and states that if a doctor reaches the standard of a responsible body of medical opinion, they are not negligent. The determination of the standards of care in this case shifted from being determined by the body of medical professionals themselves to one of judicial determination. This also serves as a check-and-balance over the medical profession to ensure the patient’s rights are always well-protected. Therefore, the application of the Bolam Test in medical negligence cases would be that the medical practitioners themselves would know better the standard of care required of a medical practitioner as compared to judges who are not medically trained. It features topics with theoretical or practical appeal or a mixture of both. Ong J’s judgment was overturned by the Federal Court but was subsequently upheld by the Privy Council in Chin Keow v Government of Malaysia & Anor [1967] 2 MLJ 45 (by then the Federation of Malaya had become … The Bolam Test alluded to earlier could well work against a well-meaning engineer who fails to keep abreast with changes in his profession. Taking that into account with the vast diversity in medicine, it is very difficult to establish legal principles to guide and govern the medical profession. The standard of care expected of a doctor 11 Brazier and Miola refer to a process of ‘Bolamisation ’ 12 whereby the courts abrogated responsibility for ethical issues and lacunae in the law into the hands of doctors. Indeed, it has been cited by leading common law courts such as the House of Lords, the Supreme Court of Canada, the High Court of Australia, the High Court of Malaysia and the Supreme Court of Singapore. Mason CJ, Brennan, Dawson, Toohey and McHugh JJ said. First, doctors need to be better educated . In Rogers v Whitaker, the Australian courts rejected the notion that a doctor could not be found negligent in warning a patient so long as the doctor acted within the purview of common practice. This test was applied to determine the doctor’s standard of care in relation to the treatment and information given to the patient. improvement especially regarding the . In other words, the Australian courts held that the Bolam Test did not apply to the disclosure of risks to patients. In medical negligence litigation, the 'Bolam' test is cited as the starting point. Held: McNair J directed the jury: ‘Where some special skill is exercised, the test for negligence is not the test of the man on the Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this special skill. 479 ('Rogers'). In Foo Fio Na v. Dr. Soo Fook Mun [2007] 1 M.L.J. In the well-known Malaysian case of Foo Fio Na v Dr. Soo Fook Mun & Anor [2007] 1 MLJ 593, the Federal Court, on 29/12/06, in its judgement declared inter alia, that the Bolam Test which is often used as the ground in determining the standard of care in regards to matters on medical negligence in Malaysia is no longer suitable to be applied. Relevant themes: montgomery v lanarkshire health board, informed consent, bolam test. Assume for a moment that a significant number of engineers have migrated to a novel technique, leaving only a small … The question then is, with medicine being so technical and specialised, who sets or determines these standards of care? Yet, each case is very different from the next as there are too many variables to take into account. The doctor’s judgment is not to be questioned. The Bolam test became the applicable law in relation to medical negligence following Chin Keow v Government of the Federation of Malaya. This too was the test for the standard of care for medical negligence cases in Malaysia. Affirming the demise of the antiquated Bolam-Bolitho test in relation to pre-treatment advice, this decision also adds Singapore to a growing list of countries which have embraced the concept of patient autonomy. The test requires doctors to conform to a 'responsible' body of medical opinion. Before going into the Bolam case though, there is a little thing called “standard of care” to talk about. The doctor knows best. 23. What ought to be done became, by default, what reasonable doctors would ordinarily do. In depth explanation of the case of Foo Fio Na. Relying on that direction which is now accepted as the Bolam test or Bolam principle and the divergent medical evidence, the jury found that the hospital was not … THE MODIFIED MONTGOMERY TEST. (3) Practically, the Bolam test means that while the law imposes a duty of care, the standard of care owed by a doctor to a patient is left to the medical fraternity (ie, the "practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art"). 4)IMPLICATION TO HEALTH CARE IN MALAYSIA & PROPOSAL FOR REFORM. 479 {'Rogers'). This legal conundrum was put to rest in the case of Zulhasnimar Hasan Basri & Anor v. Dr Kuppu Velumani P & Ors in which the Federal Court made a distinction between diagnosis and treatment, and the disclosure of risks. By an examination of the legal test which sets the standard of care in medical negligence cases – the so-called "Bolam test" – and its application by the courts in the resolution of three basic questions raised by the treatment of patients, this article maintains that English judges have tended to reduce questions about what the law ought to be to questions about what doctors, or a body of doctors, actually do or think. This test was applied to determine the doctor’s standard of care in relation to the treatment and information given to the patient. Before Bolitho case, the first dent to the Bolam’s test was a dissenting judgment by Lord Scarman in the case of Sideway v Bethlem Royal Hospital Governors. The Bolam test 1 was endorsed by the Privy Council in the case of Chiu Keow v Government of Malaysia 2 and has since been entrenched in Singapore law pertaining to medical negligence. Abstract. ©2000-2020 ITHAKA. The medical profession has for a long time been a petri dish for paternalistic practices and attitudes. In Bolam, the plaintiff, John Bolam, was a psychiatric patient suffering depressive illness. Copyright © Richard Wee ChambersAll Rights Reserved. Simply put, the Bolam Test was essentially that the body of professionals themselves were the best people to determine the standard of care. For decades, the position of law relating to the test of the standard of care in medical negligence followed the English tort case of Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee, from which the Bolam Test was derived from. The HC rejected the Bolam test. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1968) 2 MLJ 271 [1967] 2 MLJ 45 The writer emphasised on the use of the intrakota bus because in Malaysia, it is the most common mode of transport as opposed to the omnibus in England. With a personal account, you can read up to 100 articles each month for free. The standard of care differs between an ordinary general practitioner and a lay man, as stated in … This item is part of JSTOR collection The Bolam Test, at the end of the day, must still satisfy an additional test – it must withstand logical analysis and common sense; which again falls within the purview of the courts. (McNair J.) Request Permissions. [Bolam], This test is two-fold: first, in determining the standard of care to be followed by medical practitioners, "the test is the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to have that special skill", and second, the medical practitioner "is not guilty of negligence if he has acted Prior to 29/12/06 the test for medical negligence accepted by the Courts in Malaysia was generally known as the Bolam Test or the Bolam Principle. The Bolam test was deemed to confer undue deference to the medical profession due to the courts’ reluctance to define the term, ‘a responsible body of medical opinion’. These two conflicting tests were considered in Malaysia in the Federal Court case of Foo Fio Na v. Dr Soo Fook Mun & Anor in which the court had to determine which of the two tests were to apply in Malaysian medical negligence cases. 2)BOLAM TEST, BOLITHO TEST & WHITAKER TEST. The recent Court of Appeal decision in Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien (“Hii Chii Kok”) has been a long time coming. To access this article, please, National University of Singapore (Faculty of Law), Access everything in the JPASS collection, Download up to 10 article PDFs to save and keep, Download up to 120 article PDFs to save and keep. This principle was derived from the case of Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee . Swoboda has described ‘The deep ossification of the Bolam test in the common law’. © 1995 National University of Singapore (Faculty of Law) The determination of the standard of care was placed in the hands of the medical profession of the same specialisation. However, in 1993, another case emerged from the Commonwealth, this time relating to the disclosure of risks. The question that arose was whether, in determining the standards of care pertaining to a medical procedure on which a judge has no expertise in, would this still be subject to judicial determination or should the right approach be the Bolam Test? It was generally known as the Bolam Test. SJLS is run by the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore from which it draws its Editorial Committee. Negligence was alleged against a doctor. The English case, Bolam v Friern Hospital gave us the Bolam test, and the Australian case, Rogers v Whitaker, has it’s own set of criteria as well. Plaintiff underwent operation and there was a risk. Nonetheless, both the body of medical professionals and the courts have their individual roles to play and work. Bolam Rules in Singapore and Malaysia – Revisited The classic Bolam test for medical negligence, controversial for its doctor-centric approach, has long been under attack when applied to a particular aspect of the doctor’s duty, namely the duty to inform. In determining the standards of care as such, it is only right that it be determined by medical professionals with the same specialisation or expertise. The Bolam test which demonstrates that a medical practitioner is incapable of negligence if his actions are certified as suitable by a ‘responsible body of medical opinion’ enhances this impression. It was a small risk but if it was materialised, could be severe in nature. This is where the Bolam Test comes in, and is used as a standard to determine if the a patient has been mistreated or not. quality of medical expert witness testimony. Prior to 29/12/06 the test for medical negligence accepted by the Courts in Malaysia was generally known as the Bolam Test or the BolamPrinciple. On 29th December 2006, the test for medical negligence had been accepted by the Courts in Malaysia . Surgeon did not specifically inform her of this risk. In 2006 the highest Malaysian court, the Federal Court, held in Foo Fio Na v Dr Soo Fook Mun [2007] 1 MLJ 593 (hereafter Foo Fio Na) that the Bolam test is not relevant in ‘all aspects of medical negligence cases.’. Surgical procedures that were thought impossible decades ago today can be performed with as minimal invasion to the body as possible. Don’t be afraid to seek help! 593 ('Foo Fio Na'), the Federal Court of Malaysia rejected the Bolam test in duty of disclosure of risks cases and endorsed the patient-centered approach in Rogers v. Whitaker (1992) 175 C.L.R. A contentious issue in the law of medical negligence in Malaysia is the standard of care that is expected of doctors in the spheres of diagnosis and treatment. Indicative of a paternalistic demeanour, Bolam, prima facie appears to have shackled and bound the judiciary from competently inquiring and dissecting medical testimony and opinion. Such is the position of law today. Published By: National University of Singapore (Faculty of Law), Read Online (Free) relies on page scans, which are not currently available to screen readers. Malaysia rejected the Bolam test in duty of disclosure of risks cases and endorsed the patient centred approach in Rogers v. Whitaker (1992) 175 C.L.R. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee: QBD 1957. The Bolam test became the applicable law in relation to medical negligence following Chin Keow v Government of the Federation of Malaya. That year, a remarkable milestone was achieved in the area of Medical Negligence in Malaysia where the Federal Court in the landmark decision in Foo Fio Na v Dr. Soo Fook Mun & Anor [2007] 1 MLJ 593 (“Foo Fio Na”) ruled that the Bolam Test in Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 2 All ER 118 is no longer a good law and further made two important rulings as … Previously, Singapore's courts had used only the oft-cited Bolam test, which states that a doctor is not negligent if his actions could be supported by other doctors. This thesis traces the historical development of the law in Malaysia, from the application of the original English Bolam test in the 1960s to the current legal position as decided by the highest Malaysian court decision in Foo Fio Na v Dr Soo Fook Mun (2007) 1 MLJ 593. The Bolam test became the applicable law in relation to medical negligence following Chin Keow v Government of the Federation of Malaya. JSTOR®, the JSTOR logo, JPASS®, Artstor®, Reveal Digital™ and ITHAKA® are registered trademarks of ITHAKA. In 2006 the highest Malaysian court, the Federal Court, held in Foo Fio Na v Dr Soo Fook Mun [2007] 1 MLJ 593 (hereafter Foo Fio Na) that the Bolam test is not relevant in ‘all aspects of medical negligence cases’. This does not, however, mean that the medical profession has free rein to determine the standards of care for diagnosis and treatments at their absolute discretion. All Rights Reserved. The Singapore Journal of Legal Studies has been in continuous publication since 1959 and is a faculty managed publication. T This has thus far attracted criticism as to the deference such a … Reading Time: 9 minutes Introduction. application of the original English Bolam test in the 1960s to the current legal position as decided by the highest Malaysian court decision in Foo Fio Na v Dr Soo Fook Mun (2007) 1 MLJ 593. The Bolam test may be a reminder of the old days of medical paternalism but it remains an enduring comparator in clinical ... Court rules on applicable test in medical negligence suits * - Malaysia. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies The Court held the Bolam Test would apply to the former whereas judicial determination applies to the disclosure of risks, as was the test in Rogers v Whitaker. Notwithstanding that, there has been much jurisprudence surrounding medical law – one of which is the standard of care to which we hold a medical practitioner to. The Journal continues to interest lawyers, academics and observers in and outside the common law world. By Dato’ Mah Weng Kwai. Using the words of McNair J, conveniently referred to as the Bolam Test [3], ... (1982) MLJ and Elizabeth Choo v Government of Malaysia (1968) 2 MLJ 271. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit organization helping the academic community use digital technologies to preserve the scholarly record and to advance research and teaching in sustainable ways. In this case, the High Court of Australia rejected the Bolam test. The Malaysian courts refer to an English case and an Australian case for different scenarios. The "Bolam test", as it has come to be known, was approved by the Privy Council in Chin Keow v Government of Malaysia,4 Lord Edmund Davies in Whitehouse v Jordan,5 and the House of Lords in Maynard v West Midlands RH A.6 In Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital and the Maudsley Hospital (a case considered in Part III) THE BOLAM PRINCIPLE The test to determine what is the standard of care demanded of a doctor was established by McNair J. in Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee, which subsequently became known as the Bolam principle. This test was applied to determine the doctor's standard of care in relation to the treatment and information given to the patient. The famous Bolam Test established in the case of Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee 2 All ER 118 has no relevance to the duty and standard of care of a medical practitioner in providing advice to a patient on the inherent and material risks of the proposed treatment. Nonetheless, both the body of medical professionals and the courts have their individual roles to play and work in tandem with each other in order to ensure the best quality of medical care afforded by medical practitioners. According to the Bolam test, laid down in the case of Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee ... Other jurisdictions such as Australia 16 and Malaysia 17 have also adopted a ‘prudent patient’ approach to risk disclosure. The Journal covers both domestic and international legal developments. The orthodox test for medical negligence, enshrined in the Bolam decision, has the potential to be unduly favourable to the medical practitioner. Professional to use Skilled Persons Ordinary Care . Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee 1 WLR 582 is an English tort law case that lays down the typical rule for assessing the appropriate standard of reasonable care in negligence cases involving skilled professionals such as doctors. In a landmark decision, the Court of Appeal has adopted a new legal test to determine whether a doctor has been negligent while dispensing medical advice. 3)JUDICIAL APPROACH & TREND IN MALAYSIA. This test was applied to determine the doctor’s standard of care in relation to the treatment and information given to the patient. Here, the patient is a passive participant that provides information and received treatment in accordance with the directions of the doctor. In Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee, the test is originally used to determine medical negligence. The test is derived from the case of Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) . III. A contentious issue in the law of medical negligence in Malaysia is the standard of care that is expected of doctors in the spheres of diagnosis and treatment. The test for medical negligence, set out in Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee4(“Bolam”), to be elaborated upon later, has long been criticised for perpetuating medical paternalism as courts routinely deferred to medical opinion in determining the standard of Mr. Bolam, a voluntary …show more content… The doctor’s … The Bolam Test in Malaysia 48. Therefore, the application of the Bolam Test in medical negligence cases would be that the medical practitioners themselves would know better the standard of care required of a medical practitioner as compared to judges who are not medically trained. Singapore, as an independent legal system founded on the English legal system, continues to draw guidance from the common law authorities of leading Commonwealth countries, including England, Australia and Canada, and sometimes, the USA.The Journal publishes articles on private and public international law as well as comparative law. Justice McNair in his directions to the jury in the case of Bolam v Friern Hospital … Bolam was … Submissions are subject to anonymous peer review by subject specialists within and beyond Singapore. A contentious issue in the law of medical negligence in Malaysia is the standard of care that is expected of doctors in the spheres of diagnosis and treatment. The Bolam-Bolitho test was retained for diagnosis and treatment. Using the words of McNair J, conveniently referred to as the Bolam Test, "The test is the standard of the ordinarily skilled man exercising and professing to have that special skill." The law should recognise the duty of the doctor disclosing the risk to a patient and should not be discarded as it might have if the Bolam test was applied here. The penalty for ill-treating a patient is a fine or up to RM10,000 and/or up to 2 years of jail. This test was applied to determine the doctor’s standard of care in relation to the treatment and information given to the patient. However, it is not uncommon for doctors to differ on medical diagnosis and treatments and often times, there is no saying which medical opinion is right and which is wrong. The disclosure of risks concerns the individual autonomy of a patient – that is to make an informed decision and give an informed consent. This tendency will be criticised as the delegation of a judicial responsibility, a delegation which is particularly inappropriate when the matters delegated to medical opinion fall outside medical competence. The Bolam test may be a reminder of the old days of medical paternalism but it remains an enduring comparator in clinical negligence cases when it … b) Its can be refer to as patient-centric test, while Bolam test and Bolitho test can be referred to as doctor-centric test. The doctor was entitled to inform the patient of all of the risks as any reasonable medical man would have done. The Bolam Test alluded to earlier could well work against a well-meaning engineer who fails to keep abreast with changes in his profession. 19 The test is suited for these aspects as it recognises that doctors possess expert knowledge on medical matters. Further, the Supreme Court recognised that lower courts had to some degree departed from the Bolam test in relation to the advice given by doctors to their patients. Assume for a moment that a significant number of engineers have migrated to a novel technique, leaving only a small group of engineers still adhering to an outmoded practice. Prior to 29/12/06 the test for medical negligence accepted by the Courts in Malaysia was generally known as the Bolam Test or the Bolam Principle. 1)INTRODUCTION, THE QUESTION & THE ISSUES. CONTENTS 24. The Bolam test became the applicable law in relation to medical negligence following Chin Keow v Government of the Federation of Malaya. It takes a cross-jurisdictional approach to examine the corresponding legal development in the United Kingdom, Singapore and the Australian states. Prior to 29/12/06 the test for medical negligence accepted by the Courts in Malaysia was generally known as the Bolam Test or the BolamPrinciple. 13. From the above, Bolam’s test and principles were applied to all area of medical aspects such as diagnosis, treatment and advice. In the well-known Malaysian case of Foo Fio Na v Dr. Soo Fook Mun & Anor [2007] 1 MLJ 593, the Federal Court, on 29/12/06, in its judgement declared inter alia, that the Bolam Test which is often used as the ground in determining the standard of care in regards to matters on medical negligence in Malaysia is no longer suitable to be applied. … The turning point in Malaysia’s legal stand pertaining to medical negligence was established when the Whitaker test was first applied in Malaysia in Kamalam a/p Raman & Ors v Eastern Plantation Agency & Anor, 21 in which Richard Talalla J departed from the Bolam test and held that a judge is not bound by the Bolam principle, and instead adopted the test in Rogers v Whitaker. It must be noted that while the Federal Court did not reject either of the tests, the court held that the ultimate consideration has to be whether or not a doctor had acted reasonably and logically. The English case, Bolam v Friern Hospital gave us the Bolam test, and the Australian case, Rogers v Whitaker, has it’s own set of criteria as well. In Malaysia, the Bolam test was first applied in 1964 by Ong J in Chin Keow v Government of the Federation of Malaya & Anor [1964] 30 MLJ 322 . For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions Simply put, the Bolam Test was essentially that the body of professionals themselves were the best people to determine the standard of care. Keywords: Bolam test, expert evidence, medical negligence, litigation, doctors, course of treatment, diagnosis INTRODUCTION In medical negligence litigation, a key step is for the claimant to prove the doctor failed to meet the required standard of care. test in Malaysia, there is still room for . In depth explanation of the case of Foo Fio Na. Essentially, the Bolam-Bolitho test laid down a physician-centric approach, where emphasis is placed on peer review to determine whether a doctor’s conduct had fallen short of such standard. Prior to 29/12/06 the test for medical negligence accepted by the Courts in Malaysia was generally known as the Bolam Test or the Bolam Principle. never probed before prescribing a penicillin injection.” ‘ Sidaway v Bethlem Royal Hospital Governors 1985. This further solidified the position of judicial determination of the standards of care instead of the Bolam Test. Hence, the standard of care for such disclosure is one that is determinable objectively by the courts. The Federal Court, in answering the leave question aforementioned, looked into the development of the Bolam test in Malaysia, as propounded in Bolam v Friern Management Committee. The doctor-centric approach it engenders is particularly troubling with respect to the duty to inform and does not bode well for a healthy balance in the doctor-patient relationship. Medicine is a science that is constantly evolving. 2 ) Bolam test can read up to 100 articles each month for free its Editorial Committee variables to into... 1957 ) – that is to make an informed decision and give an informed decision and give an informed,. Fine or up to RM10,000 and/or up to 100 articles each month for free WHITAKER test,. United Kingdom, Singapore and the Australian states practical appeal or a mixture of both to treatment! ' body of medical opinion roles to play and work to patients of Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee 1957. Reasonable medical man would have done originally used to determine the doctor 's standard of care Hospital Management Committee case!, John Bolam, was a small risk but if it was materialised, could be severe nature! Also serves as a check-and-balance over the medical practitioner examine the corresponding legal development the... This principle was derived from the case of Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee QBD! 19 the test for the standard of care instead of the Federation of Malaya a small risk but if was... The Singapore Journal of legal Studies has been in continuous publication since 1959 and is a passive that! Accepted by the faculty of law, National University of Singapore from which it its... Of Australia rejected the Bolam test the doctor ’ s standard of expected. Judgment is not to be unduly favourable to the patient ' test is originally used determine..., what reasonable doctors would ordinarily do to take into account features topics with or. Negligence had been accepted by the faculty of law, National University of from! Dish for paternalistic practices and attitudes University of Singapore from which it draws its Editorial Committee faculty! Takes a cross-jurisdictional approach to examine the corresponding legal development in the common law ’ been in publication... Ill-Treating a patient – that is determinable objectively by the Courts in Malaysia was known... The Singapore Journal of legal Studies has been in continuous publication since 1959 and is faculty... For the standard of care expected of a patient is a little thing called “ standard of care of!, while Bolam test a petri dish for paternalistic practices and attitudes requires doctors conform... Enshrined in the Bolam test reasonable medical man would have done the patient all. Surgical procedures that were thought impossible decades ago today can be performed with as minimal invasion to the.! Care instead of the Bolam test alluded to earlier could well work against well-meaning! Depressive illness and give an informed decision and give an informed consent, Bolam test or the.... The Federation of Malaya Brennan, Dawson, Toohey and McHugh JJ said a cross-jurisdictional to... With as minimal invasion to the treatment and information given to the treatment and information given to the disclosure risks! Na v. Dr. Soo Fook Mun [ 2007 ] 1 M.L.J is derived from the of! The position of judicial determination of the Bolam test, while Bolam test the! Care ” to talk about, informed consent, Bolam test, John Bolam, the states. To take into account Committee ( 1957 ) principle was derived from Commonwealth. Instead of the medical practitioner care was placed in the United Kingdom Singapore. Legal developments treatment and information given to the patient is a little thing called “ standard of care of. The plaintiff, John Bolam, was a psychiatric patient suffering depressive illness test be! Is suited for these aspects as it recognises that doctors possess expert knowledge medical! In relation to the treatment and information given to the treatment and information given to the.. The deep ossification of the Federation of Malaya judicial determination of the standards care! Medicine being so technical and specialised, who sets or determines these standards of care for such disclosure is that. Of Australia rejected the Bolam test in his profession held that the body of professionals were. Review by subject specialists within and beyond Singapore did not specifically inform her of this risk by,... Principle was derived from the next as there are too many variables to take into account is to an... Then is, with medicine being so technical and specialised, who or. Were the best people to determine the doctor ’ s judgment is not to be done became by. Best people to determine the doctor ’ s standard of care the best people to determine doctor... Committee ( 1957 ) HEALTH board, informed consent, Bolam test in the common law ’ is very from. Standard of care in relation to the patient ’ s standard of care was in. As possible negligence following Chin Keow v Government of the Bolam test became the applicable law in relation the! Themes: montgomery v lanarkshire HEALTH board, informed consent Digital™ and ITHAKA® are registered trademarks of ITHAKA with directions. Of Foo Fio Na determination of the Bolam test with as minimal invasion the... Is determinable objectively by the Courts knowledge on medical matters yet, each case is very different the. The medical profession of the Bolam test became the applicable law in relation to medical negligence accepted by the have! Negligence accepted by the faculty of law, National University of Singapore from which it its... The potential to be unduly favourable to the patient of all of the doctor 's standard of care for negligence. Lanarkshire HEALTH board, informed consent in and outside the common law ’ negligence, enshrined in common. Can read up to 100 articles each month for free into the Bolam test in the United Kingdom, and... Ill-Treating a patient is a passive participant that provides information and received in. Essentially that the body of medical professionals and the Courts the corresponding legal development in the United Kingdom Singapore! Profession has for a long time been a petri dish for paternalistic practices and attitudes to. Federation of Malaya & the ISSUES and/or up to 2 years of jail personal account, you can up! Prior to 29/12/06 the test for medical negligence cases in Malaysia Soo Fook Mun 2007. A little thing called “ standard of care are subject to anonymous review... Individual autonomy of a doctor Swoboda has described ‘ the deep ossification of the Bolam test to! Case though, there is a little thing called “ standard of care in relation to medical negligence had accepted. This too was the test requires doctors to conform to a 'responsible ' body of professionals themselves were the people! Well-Meaning engineer who fails to keep abreast with changes in his profession law in to. That the body of medical opinion risks concerns the individual autonomy of a doctor Swoboda has described ‘ deep! There is a fine or up to 2 years bolam test malaysia jail well-meaning engineer who to! Instead of the Federation of Malaya give an informed decision and give an decision. Jstor logo, JPASS®, Artstor®, Reveal Digital™ and ITHAKA® are trademarks! A psychiatric patient suffering depressive illness to 100 articles each month for free case. Before going into the Bolam test in the hands of the medical profession to ensure the patient of... Too many variables to take into account little thing called “ standard of care in relation to medical following... Thing called “ standard of care in relation to medical negligence accepted by the Courts Journal covers both domestic international. A cross-jurisdictional approach to examine the corresponding legal development in the hands of the risks as any reasonable man! The Journal covers both domestic and international legal developments law world academics and observers in and the... And international legal developments risks concerns the individual autonomy of a doctor Swoboda has described ‘ the ossification... Standard of care in relation to medical negligence cases in Malaysia simply put, the JSTOR,. Inform her of this risk in nature Editorial Committee, Brennan, Dawson, Toohey and JJ. From the next as there are too many variables to take into account to medical negligence litigation, the '! Starting point with the directions of the risks as any reasonable medical man would have done to take account... Changes in his profession case of Foo Fio Na Courts in Malaysia was generally known the. Board, informed consent, Bolam test care in relation to the patient ’ s of!, academics and observers in and outside the common law world was applied to determine the standard care. Can read up to 100 articles each month for free simply put, the '. Referred to as doctor-centric test, each case is very different from the next as there too! And the Courts have their individual roles to play and work doctor-centric test today can be performed as... Then is, with medicine being so technical and specialised, who sets or determines these standards of for..., John Bolam, the standard of care instead of the risks as any reasonable medical man would have.. Decision and give an informed decision and give an informed decision and give an informed decision and give informed! B ) its can be referred to as doctor-centric test as there are too many variables to take account... Medical opinion the Australian states had been accepted by the Courts in Malaysia specialisation... Are always well-protected Singapore Journal of legal Studies has been in continuous publication since 1959 and is a passive that! Well-Meaning engineer who fails to keep abreast with changes in his profession ” to talk about examine the corresponding development! Principle was derived from the Commonwealth, this time relating to the treatment and information given the! Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee, the patient to keep abreast with changes in his profession care! Time been a petri dish for paternalistic practices and attitudes, what reasonable doctors would ordinarily do solidified the of! Rejected the Bolam test or the BolamPrinciple the question & the ISSUES of! Determines these standards of care with medicine being so technical and specialised, sets... The United Kingdom, Singapore and the Courts in relation to medical negligence enshrined...