Mind the information gap: Quantifying the courts' role in responding to patient harm, 1989 to 2013

Wendy Bonython, Bruce Baer Arnold

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

2 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

An empirical critique of Australia's medical indemnity "crisis" challenges assumptions about the role of the courts through determination of civil liability for medical negligence, occupational discipline and criminal liability. Courts were identified as a cause of a "crisis" in the 2000s that triggered extensive legislative reform of medical negligence law, absent adequate empirical data substantiating either criticisms of the courts or supporting the reforms. Changes to the occupational discipline framework for health practitioners were less controversial but have resulted in increasingly legalistic responses. Using a detailed longitudinal analysis across all jurisdictions this article examines the role of the courts in responding to patient harm across the relevant 25-year period encompassing these reforms, to determine whether the courts did "cause" the medical indemnity crisis, what effect the reforms had and what other roles the courts play in responding to patient harm.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)549-571
Number of pages23
JournalJournal of Law and Medicine
Volume25
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2018
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Patient Harm
Malpractice
Insurance
Legal Liability
indemnity
reform
liability
Health
cause
jurisdiction
criticism
Law
health

Cite this

@article{4ac397ab41824856b305063102502cd3,
title = "Mind the information gap: Quantifying the courts' role in responding to patient harm, 1989 to 2013",
abstract = "An empirical critique of Australia's medical indemnity {"}crisis{"} challenges assumptions about the role of the courts through determination of civil liability for medical negligence, occupational discipline and criminal liability. Courts were identified as a cause of a {"}crisis{"} in the 2000s that triggered extensive legislative reform of medical negligence law, absent adequate empirical data substantiating either criticisms of the courts or supporting the reforms. Changes to the occupational discipline framework for health practitioners were less controversial but have resulted in increasingly legalistic responses. Using a detailed longitudinal analysis across all jurisdictions this article examines the role of the courts in responding to patient harm across the relevant 25-year period encompassing these reforms, to determine whether the courts did {"}cause{"} the medical indemnity crisis, what effect the reforms had and what other roles the courts play in responding to patient harm.",
author = "Wendy Bonython and Arnold, {Bruce Baer}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "549--571",
journal = "Journal of Law and Medicine",
issn = "1320-159X",
publisher = "Thomson Head Office",
number = "2",

}

Mind the information gap : Quantifying the courts' role in responding to patient harm, 1989 to 2013. / Bonython, Wendy; Arnold, Bruce Baer.

In: Journal of Law and Medicine, Vol. 25, No. 2, 01.01.2018, p. 549-571.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Mind the information gap

T2 - Quantifying the courts' role in responding to patient harm, 1989 to 2013

AU - Bonython, Wendy

AU - Arnold, Bruce Baer

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - An empirical critique of Australia's medical indemnity "crisis" challenges assumptions about the role of the courts through determination of civil liability for medical negligence, occupational discipline and criminal liability. Courts were identified as a cause of a "crisis" in the 2000s that triggered extensive legislative reform of medical negligence law, absent adequate empirical data substantiating either criticisms of the courts or supporting the reforms. Changes to the occupational discipline framework for health practitioners were less controversial but have resulted in increasingly legalistic responses. Using a detailed longitudinal analysis across all jurisdictions this article examines the role of the courts in responding to patient harm across the relevant 25-year period encompassing these reforms, to determine whether the courts did "cause" the medical indemnity crisis, what effect the reforms had and what other roles the courts play in responding to patient harm.

AB - An empirical critique of Australia's medical indemnity "crisis" challenges assumptions about the role of the courts through determination of civil liability for medical negligence, occupational discipline and criminal liability. Courts were identified as a cause of a "crisis" in the 2000s that triggered extensive legislative reform of medical negligence law, absent adequate empirical data substantiating either criticisms of the courts or supporting the reforms. Changes to the occupational discipline framework for health practitioners were less controversial but have resulted in increasingly legalistic responses. Using a detailed longitudinal analysis across all jurisdictions this article examines the role of the courts in responding to patient harm across the relevant 25-year period encompassing these reforms, to determine whether the courts did "cause" the medical indemnity crisis, what effect the reforms had and what other roles the courts play in responding to patient harm.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85052179677&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 25

SP - 549

EP - 571

JO - Journal of Law and Medicine

JF - Journal of Law and Medicine

SN - 1320-159X

IS - 2

ER -