Skip to main content
NCBI home page
British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.) logoLink to British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.)
. 1987 Jun 20;294(6587):1597–1600. doi: 10.1136/bmj.294.6587.1597

Medical malpractice in perspective. II--The implications for Britain.

L Quam, P Fenn, R Dingwall
PMCID: PMC1246737  PMID: 3113546

Abstract

The "malpractice crisis" in the United States cannot be understood in isolation. Litigation is precipitated by features of the American health care and social security systems. Relative to the United Kingdom, there are fewer barriers of access to the courts, although the role of contingency fees has probably been exaggerated. Given the great institutional differences between the UK and the USA, the crisis seems unlikely to be replicated here unless there are further moves towards privatising both the costs of providing health care and the costs of its failures. It is concluded that a marginal change in the frequency or average cost of claims could have a serious impact on National Health Service resources, the medical defence societies, recruitment to specialties, and clinical practice. Debate over possible reforms is compromised by the dearth of good empirical data. Any changes, however, must address both the deterrence of bad practice and the compensation of injured patients.

Full text

PDF
1597

Images in this article

1599p1599-a
on p.1599

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Annas G. J. Why the British courts rejected the American doctrine of informed consent (and what British physicians should do about it). Am J Public Health. 1984 Nov;74(11):1286–1288. doi: 10.2105/ajph.74.11.1286. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Brahams D. Doctors and the courts. Lancet. 1984 Nov 3;2(8410):1050–1050. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(84)91158-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Brahams D. Medicine and the Law. In negligence actions against doctors no blame means no compensation. Lancet. 1983 May 28;1(8335):1231–1231. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(83)92523-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Brahams D. Negligent treatment of premature infant causing retrolental fibroplasia: judge seeks pre-trial disclosure of medical reports. Lancet. 1985 Mar 9;1(8428):589–590. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(85)91254-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Brenner L. H., Jessee W. F. Delays in diagnosis: a problem for quality assurance. QRB Qual Rev Bull. 1983 Nov;9(11):337–344. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cameron C. T. Letter from... New York. Some aspects of US medical malpractice insurance. Br Med J. 1977 Oct 1;2(6091):877–880. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.6091.877. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Graham A. R. Trial labor following previous cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1984 May 1;149(1):35–45. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(84)90289-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Green R. A. A matter of vigilance. Anaesthesia. 1986 Feb;41(2):129–130. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1986.tb13165.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Green R. A., Taylor T. H. An analysis of anesthesia medical liability claims in the United Kingdom, 1977-1982. Int Anesthesiol Clin. 1984 Summer;22(2):73–89. doi: 10.1097/00004311-198408000-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Halley M. M. Medical malpractice--1985. J Kans Med Soc. 1984 Dec;85(12):323–329. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Liston S. L., Siegel L. G. Another cause for litigation. JAMA. 1985 Jun 7;253(21):3095–3095. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. McPherson K., Strong P. M., Epstein A., Jones L. Regional variations in the use of common surgical procedures: within and between England and Wales, Canada and the United States of America. Soc Sci Med A. 1981 May;15(3 Pt 1):273–288. doi: 10.1016/0271-7123(81)90011-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. O'Driscol K., Carroll C. J., Coughlan M. Selective induction of labour. Br Med J. 1975 Dec 27;4(5999):727–729. doi: 10.1136/bmj.4.5999.727. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Phelan J. P. Obstetrics and gynecology: vaginal delivery after previous cesarean section. West J Med. 1986 Jan;144(1):69–70. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Schwartz W. B., Komesar N. K. Doctors, damages and deterrence. An economic view of medical malpractice. N Engl J Med. 1978 Jun 8;298(23):1282–1289. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197806082982304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Smith R. When things go wrong. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1986 Aug 23;293(6545):461–462. doi: 10.1136/bmj.293.6545.461. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Somers H. M. The malpractice controversy and the quality of patient care. Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc. 1977 Spring;55(2):193–232. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Symonds E. M. Litigation in obstetrics and gynaecology. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1985 May;92(5):433–434. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1985.tb01344.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Taffel S. M., Placek P. J. Complications in cesarean and non-cesarean deliveries: United States, 1980. Am J Public Health. 1983 Aug;73(8):856–860. doi: 10.2105/ajph.73.8.856. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Teff Harvey. Consent to medical procedures: paternalism, self-determination or therapeutic alliance? Law Q Rev. 1985 Jul;101:432–453. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from British Medical Journal (Clinical research ed.) are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES