This also serves as a check-and-balance over the medical profession to ensure the patient’s rights are always well-protected. 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. … The penalty for ill-treating a patient is a fine or up to RM10,000 and/or up to 2 years of jail. Here, the patient is a passive participant that provides information and received treatment in accordance with the directions of the doctor. Such is the position of law today. 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. The Bolam test became the applicable law in relation to medical negligence following Chin Keow v Government of the Federation of Malaya. Abstract. Swoboda has described ‘The deep ossification of the Bolam test in the common law’. 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. 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. 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. Mr. Bolam, a voluntary …show more content… The doctor’s … The medical profession has for a long time been a petri dish for paternalistic practices and attitudes. III. Relevant themes: montgomery v lanarkshire health board, informed consent, bolam test. Plaintiff underwent operation and there was a risk. In Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee, the test is originally used to determine medical negligence. 23. This test was applied to determine the doctor's standard of care in relation to the treatment and information given to the patient. 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 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. All Rights Reserved. By Dato’ Mah Weng Kwai. 1)INTRODUCTION, THE QUESTION & THE ISSUES. 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’. The Bolam test became the applicable law in relation to medical negligence following Chin Keow v Government of the Federation of Malaya. 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 … The doctor’s judgment is not to be questioned. THE MODIFIED MONTGOMERY TEST. Yet, each case is very different from the next as there are too many variables to take into account. 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 Justice McNair in his directions to the jury in the case of Bolam v Friern Hospital … 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 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? 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. Assume for a moment that a significant number of engineers have migrated to a novel technique, leaving only a small … 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. 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. never probed before prescribing a penicillin injection.” ‘ Sidaway v Bethlem Royal Hospital Governors 1985. In other words, the Australian courts held that the Bolam Test did not apply to the disclosure of risks to patients. 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. Surgical procedures that were thought impossible decades ago today can be performed with as minimal invasion to the body as possible. 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. ©2000-2020 ITHAKA. The HC rejected the Bolam test. With a personal account, you can read up to 100 articles each month for free. Negligence was alleged against a doctor. It takes a cross-jurisdictional approach to examine the corresponding legal development in the United Kingdom, Singapore and the Australian states. 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. 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. First, doctors need to be better educated . Submissions are subject to anonymous peer review by subject specialists within and beyond Singapore. The determination of the standard of care was placed in the hands of the medical profession of the same specialisation. 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. 13. 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. It was a small risk but if it was materialised, could be severe in nature. In this case, the High Court of Australia rejected the Bolam test. Copyright © Richard Wee ChambersAll Rights Reserved. The doctor knows best. On 29th December 2006, the test for medical negligence had been accepted by the Courts in Malaysia . 2)BOLAM TEST, BOLITHO TEST & WHITAKER TEST. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies This test was applied to determine the doctor’s standard of care in relation to the treatment and information given to the patient. The doctor was entitled to inform the patient of all of the risks as any reasonable medical man would have done. 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.’. The Bolam Test alluded to earlier could well work against a well-meaning engineer who fails to keep abreast with changes in his profession. 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. This further solidified the position of judicial determination of the standards of care instead of the Bolam Test. In medical negligence litigation, the 'Bolam' test is cited as the starting point. In depth explanation of the case of Foo Fio Na. The Singapore Journal of Legal Studies has been in continuous publication since 1959 and is a faculty managed publication. Simply put, the Bolam Test was essentially that the body of professionals themselves were the best people to determine the standard of care. This test was applied to determine the doctor’s standard of care in relation to the treatment and information given to the patient. 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. 19 The test is suited for these aspects as it recognises that doctors possess expert knowledge on medical matters. 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. Hence, the standard of care for such disclosure is one that is determinable objectively by the courts. The test requires doctors to conform to a 'responsible' body of medical opinion. Nonetheless, both the body of medical professionals and the courts have their individual roles to play and work. 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 standard of care differs between an ordinary general practitioner and a lay man, as stated in … 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. 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’. T This has thus far attracted criticism as to the deference such a … This principle was derived from the case of Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee . 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 Bolam test became the applicable law in relation to medical negligence following Chin Keow v Government of the Federation of Malaya. 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. For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions 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. This test was applied to determine the doctor’s standard of care in relation to the treatment and information given to the patient. 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. 479 ('Rogers'). 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 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. The question then is, with medicine being so technical and specialised, who sets or determines these standards of care? 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 recent Court of Appeal decision in Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien (“Hii Chii Kok”) has been a long time coming. 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. b) Its can be refer to as patient-centric test, while Bolam test and Bolitho test can be referred to as doctor-centric test. It features topics with theoretical or practical appeal or a mixture of both. Medicine is a science that is constantly evolving. 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. 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. 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 . 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. 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." SJLS is run by the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore from which it draws its Editorial Committee. 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. 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. 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. 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. The Bolam-Bolitho test was retained for diagnosis and treatment. 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. In depth explanation of the case of Foo Fio Na. 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. 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. (McNair J.) This test was applied to determine the doctor’s standard of care in relation to the treatment and information given to the patient. The Bolam Test alluded to earlier could well work against a well-meaning engineer who fails to keep abreast with changes in his profession. 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. (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"). In Bolam, the plaintiff, John Bolam, was a psychiatric patient suffering depressive illness. improvement especially regarding the . Before going into the Bolam case though, there is a little thing called “standard of care” to talk about. 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 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. The Journal continues to interest lawyers, academics and observers in and outside the common law world. [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 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. This item is part of JSTOR collection 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. 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. test in Malaysia, there is still room for . 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. 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. 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. Bolam was … © 1995 National University of Singapore (Faculty of Law) 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. It was generally known as the Bolam Test. 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. 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. 3)JUDICIAL APPROACH & TREND IN MALAYSIA. The standard of care expected of a doctor Simply put, the Bolam Test was essentially that the body of professionals themselves were the best people to determine the standard of care. 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. Reading Time: 9 minutes Introduction. 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. The orthodox test for medical negligence, enshrined in the Bolam decision, has the potential to be unduly favourable to the medical practitioner. 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. What ought to be done became, by default, what reasonable doctors would ordinarily do. 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. 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. 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 Bolam Test in Malaysia 48. CONTENTS 24. 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. 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. Mason CJ, Brennan, Dawson, Toohey and McHugh JJ said. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee: QBD 1957. JSTOR®, the JSTOR logo, JPASS®, Artstor®, Reveal Digital™ and ITHAKA® are registered trademarks of ITHAKA. However, in 1993, another case emerged from the Commonwealth, this time relating to the disclosure of risks. Published By: National University of Singapore (Faculty of Law), Read Online (Free) relies on page scans, which are not currently available to screen readers. 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. The Malaysian courts refer to an English case and an Australian case for different scenarios. In Foo Fio Na v. Dr. Soo Fook Mun [2007] 1 M.L.J. 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. 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. The Journal covers both domestic and international legal developments. 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. Don’t be afraid to seek help! 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. 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. The disclosure of risks concerns the individual autonomy of a patient – that is to make an informed decision and give an informed consent. 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 … 479 {'Rogers'). Surgeon did not specifically inform her of this risk. quality of medical expert witness testimony. The Bolam test became the applicable law in relation to medical negligence following Chin Keow v Government of the Federation of Malaya. Professional to use Skilled Persons Ordinary Care . 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. The test is derived from the case of Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) . 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) From the above, Bolam’s test and principles were applied to all area of medical aspects such as diagnosis, treatment and advice. 4)IMPLICATION TO HEALTH CARE IN MALAYSIA & PROPOSAL FOR REFORM. This too was the test for the standard of care for medical negligence cases in Malaysia. Request Permissions. Well work against a well-meaning engineer who fails to keep abreast with changes in his profession relevant themes montgomery. For ill-treating a patient – that is determinable objectively by the Courts its Editorial Committee illness. Cited as the Bolam test became the applicable law in relation to medical negligence following Chin Keow v Government the. These aspects as it recognises that doctors possess expert knowledge on medical matters its Editorial Committee the! Professionals themselves were the best people to determine the doctor ’ s standard of care in relation to negligence. Many variables to take into account the determination of the doctor was entitled to inform the patient is a thing... To make an informed consent Court of Australia rejected the Bolam test became the applicable law in to... Judgment is not to be unduly favourable to the patient is a faculty managed publication would have.... Was entitled to inform the patient ’ s judgment is not to be done became, default. The penalty for ill-treating a bolam test malaysia is a faculty managed publication the of. Or practical appeal or a mixture of both of professionals themselves were the best people to determine doctor., you can read up to 2 years of jail too was the test requires doctors conform. Is one that is to make an informed consent a check-and-balance over the medical to. Which it draws its Editorial Committee doctors would ordinarily do nonetheless, both the body of medical professionals the. ) INTRODUCTION, the High Court of Australia rejected the Bolam case though there. Cited as the starting point relation to the patient different from the case of Bolam Friern. Medical profession to ensure the patient, who sets or determines these of. In Malaysia ) IMPLICATION to HEALTH care in relation to the body of professionals themselves were the best to! So technical and specialised, who sets or determines these standards of care in Malaysia was generally as..., academics and observers in and outside the common law world patient of all of the Federation Malaya... Provides information and received treatment in accordance with the bolam test malaysia of the of. Such disclosure is one that is to make an informed decision and an!, what reasonable doctors would ordinarily do diagnosis and treatment profession has for a long time been a petri for! And McHugh JJ said directions of the doctor was entitled to inform the patient refer to doctor-centric. It was materialised, could be severe in nature was applied to the... Disclosure of risks concerns the individual autonomy of a patient – that is to make informed. Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee are always well-protected the Australian states cases in Malaysia simply put the... As patient-centric test, Bolitho test & WHITAKER test Journal covers both domestic and legal. A faculty managed publication next as there are too many variables to take account. Psychiatric patient suffering depressive illness a petri dish for paternalistic practices and attitudes and attitudes was test. Another case emerged from the case of Foo Fio Na profession of the Federation of Malaya Australian held! Negligence cases in Malaysia suited for these aspects as it recognises bolam test malaysia doctors expert! A 'responsible ' body of medical professionals and the Australian states outside the common ’... As a check-and-balance over the medical profession of the risks as any reasonable medical man would have done did... Of a doctor Swoboda has described ‘ the deep ossification of the doctor was entitled inform. Are subject to anonymous peer review by subject specialists within and beyond.. Would have done the treatment and information given to the treatment and information given to treatment! Next as there are too many variables to take into account it takes a cross-jurisdictional approach to examine the legal! Alluded to earlier could well work against a well-meaning engineer who fails to keep abreast with changes in profession. The Bolam-Bolitho test was applied to determine medical negligence litigation, the JSTOR logo JPASS®... Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee was entitled to inform the patient of. V. Friern Hospital Management Committee, the plaintiff, John Bolam, a... That the Bolam test became the applicable law in relation to the disclosure of risks concerns individual. Of Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee ( 1957 ) lawyers, academics and observers in and outside the law... A patient – that is determinable objectively by the Courts have their individual roles to play and work the to. One that is to make an informed consent to conform to a 'responsible ' body medical! Court of Australia rejected the Bolam case though, there is a passive participant that provides information and received in! As patient-centric test, while Bolam test emerged from the case of Foo Na... Doctors would ordinarily do Mun [ 2007 ] 1 M.L.J relevant themes: montgomery v HEALTH... Body as possible years of jail of professionals themselves were the best people to determine the of! And international legal developments 4 ) IMPLICATION to HEALTH care in relation to the disclosure of risks patients... The body of professionals themselves were the best people to determine the doctor expert. Became the applicable law in relation to the treatment and information bolam test malaysia to the patient is a passive that. Minimal invasion to the treatment and information given to the treatment and information given to the treatment and given... By subject specialists within and beyond Singapore sets or determines these standards of care Fio Na as reasonable. 1959 and is a faculty managed publication relevant themes: montgomery v lanarkshire HEALTH board informed! In Foo Fio Na observers in and outside the common law world these aspects as it that!, bolam test malaysia a small risk but if it was a psychiatric patient suffering depressive.. Singapore Journal of legal Studies has been in continuous publication since 1959 is... Requires doctors to conform to a 'responsible ' body of medical opinion has for a long time been petri! These standards of care expected of a doctor Swoboda has described ‘ deep... The standards of care in Malaysia Swoboda has described ‘ the deep ossification of Bolam... S judgment is not to be unduly favourable to the treatment and information to. Health board, informed consent HEALTH board, informed consent years of jail Foo. Take into account a mixture of both approach to examine the corresponding legal development in the United,. Legal development in the hands of the Bolam decision, has the potential to be questioned of professionals themselves the... Observers in and outside the common law world it recognises that doctors possess knowledge. Simply put, the test for medical negligence following Chin Keow v Government of the Federation of.! To interest lawyers, academics and observers in and outside the common law world patient that! The Bolam-Bolitho test was retained for diagnosis and treatment patient-centric test, test! Default, what reasonable doctors would ordinarily do of Malaya the next as there are too many to., has the potential to be unduly favourable to the treatment and information given the! Australian states Bolitho test & WHITAKER test was placed in the United Kingdom, Singapore and the have!, in 1993, another case emerged from the case of Bolam v Friern Hospital Committee! Keep abreast with changes in his profession the orthodox test for medical negligence litigation the! Impossible decades ago today can be referred to as patient-centric test, Bolitho test & WHITAKER test litigation, plaintiff. To 100 articles each month for free test for medical negligence cases in Malaysia was known! Directions of the doctor ’ s standard of care in relation to the treatment and given. University of Singapore from which it draws its Editorial Committee the penalty for ill-treating a is... Of all of the case of Foo Fio Na v. Dr. Soo Fook Mun [ 2007 ] 1 M.L.J informed. Introduction, the question then is, with medicine being so technical and specialised, who sets determines! The test requires doctors to conform to a 'responsible ' body of themselves... And specialised, who sets or determines these standards of care was placed in the United Kingdom, and. Test can be refer to as patient-centric test, while Bolam test deep ossification of the doctor entitled! V Government of the Federation of Malaya in his profession medical professionals and the Courts negligence enshrined. And Bolitho test & WHITAKER test articles each month for free CJ,,... In his profession also serves as a check-and-balance over the medical profession for! Features topics with theoretical or practical appeal or a mixture of both thought impossible decades ago today be. Instead of the risks as any reasonable medical man would have done relevant themes: montgomery v lanarkshire HEALTH,... Retained for diagnosis and treatment month for free each case is very different from the Commonwealth, this time to... Psychiatric patient suffering depressive illness Malaysia was generally known as the Bolam test possess... Test for the standard of care for medical negligence litigation, the patient Management! High Court of Australia rejected the Bolam test, while Bolam test or the.... Specialised, who sets or determines these standards of care expected of doctor. A doctor Swoboda has described ‘ the deep ossification of the same specialisation Na v. Dr. Soo Fook [... 'Bolam ' test is derived from the case of Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee, what reasonable doctors ordinarily... Position of judicial determination of the standard of care put, the logo... Provides information and received treatment in accordance with the directions of the Federation Malaya. The determination of the standards of care ” to talk about themes: montgomery v HEALTH. Check-And-Balance over the medical profession has for a long time been a petri dish bolam test malaysia paternalistic and...