Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAviruppola, K
dc.date.accessioned2019-11-05T10:12:13Z
dc.date.available2019-11-05T10:12:13Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.urihttp://ir.kdu.ac.lk/handle/345/2082
dc.description.abstractThe orthodox, yet preeminent tests of medical negligence have endangered the healthy balance of doctor - patient and doctor- judge relationships. While Bolam test being inordinately favourable towards medical practitioners, Bolitho remains shrouded in controversy due to its ambiguity. Due to the doctor-centric approach followed by Bolam, the application of the test has been regarded as inappropriate. Thus, reassertion of the role of the doctor in diagnosing and/or treating, and the judge, in determining the appropriate standard of care is of paramount importance. The author engaged in a qualitative research to highlight the imperativeness of pitching the two extremes expounded in the two tests and thereby, to prevent overshadowing each other, further victimizing the victim. Further, a comparative study was conducted taking Singapore, New Zealand, and Malyasia in to contemplation in proposing potential recommendations to augment the current medical negligence litigation process in Sri Lanka.
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectBolam testen_US
dc.subjectBolitho testen_US
dc.subjectMedical negligenceen_US
dc.titleDoctors Writing Judgments or Judges Writing Prescriptions?: A Critical Approach to Pitch the Two Extremes Expounded in Bolam and Bolitho Testsen_US
dc.typeArticle Full Texten_US
dc.identifier.journalKDUIRC -2019en_US
dc.identifier.pgnos775-778en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record