why in case of Roger v Whitaker, bolam principle was rejected

Answer 1

The Bolam principle was rejected in the case of Roger v Whitaker because it was deemed outdated and not in line with current standards of medical practice. The Bolam principle, established in the case of Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee, states that a medical professional will not be negligent if their actions are in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion.

In the Roger v Whitaker case, the Court felt that the Bolam principle did not adequately protect patients' rights to make informed decisions about their treatment. The case involved a patient who was considering undergoing an eye operation that carried a risk of blindness. The patient requested that the surgeon provide information about the likelihood of the risk occurring, but the surgeon failed to disclose this information. As a result, the patient suffered complications from the surgery.

The Court held that the patient had a right to be fully informed about the risks of the procedure and that the Bolam principle did not excuse the surgeon from providing this information. It was ruled that a doctor has a duty to disclose all material risks associated with a procedure, and the patient has the right to make an informed decision based on that information.

Therefore, in this case, the Court rejected the Bolam principle in favor of a more patient-centered approach that prioritized informed consent and the patient's right to be fully informed about the risks of a medical procedure.