Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-01T05:21:31.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Legal Issues in the Practice of Neurology and Neurosurgery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2015

Brien G. Benoit*
Affiliation:
Division of Neurosurgery, Ottawa Civic Hospital
T. David Marshall
Affiliation:
Canadian Judicial Center, Ottawa
Leslie P. Ivan
Affiliation:
Canadian Medical Protective Association
Pierre Forcier
Affiliation:
Medical and Rehabilitation Services, Regie de l'assurance automobile du Quebec
Kenneth G. Evans
Affiliation:
Gowling, Strathy and Henderson, Ottawa Canadian Medical Protective Association
*
Suite 606, 1081 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 4G2
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Canadians are suing their doctors for malpractice, at three times the rate they were 15 years ago, and during that period awards to injured patients have quadrupled in size. Since the middle 1970's when the first medical malpractice “crisis” occurred in the United States, Canadian clinical neuroscientists have felt increasingly threatened by the prospect of a lawsuit for negligence. Since medicine is intrinsically a risk taking business, adverse outcomes are inevitable. Nevertheless, accusations of negligence and carelessness set out in a Statement of Claim causes considerable stress for the defendant physician, who frequently reacts with self-doubt, depression and aggressive behaviour. A “tort” is defined as a wrongful act, and the 4 elements comprising the tort of medical malpractice are: a breech of standard care, the breech was the proximate cause of the injury, the injury produced measurable damage, and it was foreseeable that the injury would have been less injurious to the patient if the caregiver had conducted a different course. In order to put these issues into current perspective, this symposium was convened as part of the XXIV Canadian Congress of Neurological Sciences, held in Ottawa June 17, 1989.

Type
Special Features
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Neurological Sciences Federation 1990

References

REFERENCES

1.Marshall, TD.The Physician and Canadian Law. Toronto: Carswell Co. Ltd. 1979.Google Scholar
2.Dickson, B.Law and medicine: conflict or collaboration? J Neurosurg 1988; 69: 319325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Marshall, TD.Malpractice claims: no fault is no answer. Can Med Assoc J 1988; 139: 426427.Google ScholarPubMed
4.Dickens, BM.The medical malpractice problem in the United States and Canada. Transplantation/implantation today. 1988; 4: 3136.Google Scholar
5.Geekie, DA, Oscapella, EL.CMA issues call for action to deal with malpractice insurance “crisis”. Can Med Assoc J 1986: 135: 145149.Google ScholarPubMed
6.Tovee, EB.The changing face of malpractice as it involves the neurosciences in Canada: In: Morley, TP ed. Moral, ethical, and legal issues in the neurosciences, Springfield, III.: Charles C. Thomas, 1981: 3841.Google Scholar
7.Brooten, KE, Chapman, S.Malpractice, a guide to avoidance and treatment. NY: Grune & Stratton, Inc. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers. 1987.Google Scholar
8.Vughes, Reible v. (1980), 114 D.L.R. (3d) 1 (S.C.C.). quoted by Dickens (see ref. 4).Google Scholar
9.Messenger, O.Risk management in the hospital: medical staff must be involved. Can Med Assoc J 1988; 139: 994996.Google ScholarPubMed