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.