论文部分内容阅读
在医疗诉讼领域,医疗专家意见或行业“普遍做法”是强有力的证据但不是最终证据。著名的Bolam案似乎赋予医疗行业的普遍做法以终局性。Bolam测试标准不仅在治疗领域得到了适用,而且被扩展到了诊断领域和知情同意领域。但这一标准在澳大利亚和加拿大并没有得到认可。在Bolitho一案,英国的司法观点与澳大利亚和加拿大的司法观点逐渐接近。法官特别强调了来自医学界的观点是“有逻辑基础的”、“合理的”、“值得尊敬的”。鉴于医学专家意见的非终局性,尽管专家意见的存在,法官应运用风险-益处方法具体分析具体案件。
In the field of medical litigation, medical experts’ opinions or trades “common practice ” is strong evidence but not final evidence. The famous Bolam case seems to give the medical profession universal end to end. The Bolam test standard is not only applicable in the therapeutic field, but also extended to the field of diagnosis and informed consent. However, this standard has not been recognized in Australia and Canada. In the Bolitho case, the judicial opinions in the United Kingdom were gradually approaching those in Australia and Canada. In particular, the judge underlined that the views from the medical community are “logical”, “reasonable”, “deserved”. In the light of the non-finality of medical experts’ opinions, judges, in spite of the expert advice, should use a risk-benefit approach to analyze specific cases in detail.