Duty of care

result: costly healthcare,cautious treatment,sky-high insurance costs. Though medical tort reform in the US is now hostage to special interest groups,it is a salutary lesson that harsh medical negligence laws actually end up hurting the patient.

It is in this context that the Indian Supreme Courts latest judgment,giving doctors the benefit of doubt and narrowly interpreting what constitutes medical negligence is so heartening. The core question is the standard to which a doctor must be held. Should she be punished for failing to provide perfect medical advice at all points? Or should she be punished only if her error was so elementary that an average,reasonable doctor would not have committed it? This distinction is critical,given that a doctors actions can save life or cause death,exposing her to civil damages under the Consumer Protection Act,or prosecution in the criminal courts.

The Supreme Court allowed doctors the occasional error,holding they cannot be held liable merely because better treatment was possible,or finer doctors existed. In the words of the apex court,if a doctor is to administer medicine with a halter around his neck, the profession would not benefit. Costs would burgeon,and doctors would be inhibited from performing to their optimal capacity. Given the inadequacy of basic healthcare in India,not to mention a shortage of doctors,the damage will be all the greater. The ruling is therefore ultimately in the patients best interests.