Setting the legal standard of care for treatment and evidence-based medicine: a case study of antenatal corticosteroids.
This article argues that liability for negligent medical treatment should be predicated upon a standard of care reflecting what is medically and scientifically reasonable. Legal science (jurisprudence) and medical science (evidence-based medicine) should be reconciled to improve patient care and outcomes. The use of antenatal corticosteroids in obstetrics during the 1990s illustrates how most jurisprudence for setting the standard of care for treatment is ill equipped to meet the fundamental aims of tort law. The proliferation of evidence-based medical practice provides a unique opportunity for the law to encourage best medical practice when setting the standard of care for treatment. It is argued that, eventually, the law should recognise clinical practice guidelines as the prima facie standard of care for treatment. This will provide legal certainty, appropriate medical practitioner accountability, and ultimately improve patient care and outcomes.
McMurtrie
Lachlan
L
Monash University. Lachlan.McMurtrie@Mallesons.com
D000305:Adrenal Cortex Hormones / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000009:adverse effects; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D005260:Female; D005325:Fetal Organ Maturity / Q000187:drug effects; D006801:Humans; D016365:Liability, Legal; D008318:Malpractice / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D009774:Obstetrics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000592:standards; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic; D011247:Pregnancy; D047928:Premature Birth / Q000517:prevention & control*; D011295:Prenatal Care / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000592:standards; D014904:Western Australia
D000305:Adrenal Cortex Hormones