Bolam V Friern Hospital Management Committee

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee is a landmark case in medical law and medical ethics, specifically in the area of professional negligence. The case, decided in 1957, established the "Bolam Test" for assessing the standard of care in negligence cases involving professionals such as doctors.

Background

The plaintiff, John Bolam, was a patient at Friern Hospital, a mental health institution managed by the Friern Hospital Management Committee. He agreed to undergo electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), a treatment for mental disorders. During the procedure, Bolam was not given any muscle relaxants and his body was not restrained. He flailed about violently during the treatment and sustained serious injuries, including fractures. Bolam subsequently sued the hospital for negligence.

The Trial

At the trial, expert witnesses were called by both sides. Some experts testified that it was standard practice to use muscle relaxants and restraints during ECT to prevent injury, while others stated that there was a body of medical opinion which held that the use of relaxants and restraints could sometimes increase the risk of injury. The judge, Justice McNair, instructed the jury that a doctor is not negligent if he is acting in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art.

The Bolam Test

The jury found in favor of the hospital, and the "Bolam Test" was established. According to this test, a doctor is not negligent if he acts in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical professionals skilled in that particular field, even if other professionals would take a different approach. The Bolam Test has been widely adopted in Common Law jurisdictions and continues to be applied in cases of professional negligence.

Impact and Criticism

The Bolam Test has been both praised for providing a clear standard and criticized for giving too much deference to established medical practices. Some argue that it allows the medical profession to set its own standards of care, potentially protecting negligent doctors. Others, however, believe that it appropriately recognizes the complexity and diversity of medical practice.