It's about the money, stupid

It's about the money, stupid!

The Telegraph has published a story about Leigh Day's involvement in the Al-Sweady Inquiry, where it was concluded that most of the claims were deliberate lies. It mentioned that Leigh Day are one of the major opponents to the Saatchi Bill. 

Some bill opponents have proclaimed that this is unfair, as the Al-Sweady Inquiry is a different matter altogether. I disagree. The point being is that lawyers get paid for litigation. In some cases, as the Al-Sweady Inquiry demonstrates, solicitors seem to fail to do some basic vetting. They ought to be acting as officers of the court, the champions of the wronged that they claim to be. Sometimes they fall well short. 

The claims of medical negligence lawyers that only costly litigation is capable of deciding what is good medical practice is self-serving. It also contradicts their claims to only sue "bad doctors". What the Saatchi Bill will do is stop speculative law suits, so it will hit medical negligence lawyers in their pockets. It is all about money. Something which Leigh Day and others make in spades, with no sign of this activity improving patient care one iota.

Nigel Poole QC illustrates the need for the Saatchi Bill quite neatly

Nigel Poole QC illustrates the need for the Saatchi Bill quite neatly

I have made the point previously that the medical negligence lawyers who disagree with the Saatchi Bill often also strongly believe that they and their colleagues only litigate against doctors that have harmed their patients, that there is no such thing as "defensive medicine", and that nothing needs to change in the medico-legal milieu in the UK. Everything is hunky-dory, doctors have to be kept in check by the lawyers, and any changes will lead to disaster for patients.

Many doctors will find this quite incredible, and one of the leading opponents of the Saatchi Bill, Nigel Poole QC, illustrates the reality of medical negligence quite neatly. In doing so, he destroys many of his arguments against the Saatch Bill. If even standard clinical practice is litigated by medical negligence lawyers, then it defies all logic that innovations will not be the subject of legal action. 

The case of Davies v UHNS is a striking demonstration of how medical negligence lawyers can and do pursue legal action even when there is no reasonable question that the clinical management given at the time was entirely appropriate. The application of the Bolitho test was straightforward, yet the trust and doctors were dragged through the courts. Despite the protestations of the medical negligence lawyers, they don't just sue the "bad doctors". They litigate because that is how they earn their money. Hence they argue that only the courts should be deciding what is good medical practice and what isn't. Even though they then argue that lawyers don't decide what good medical practice is, but doctors. Nigel Poole QC is no exception, and this makes my point. Thank you, Nigel.