BMJ 1995;310:1671 (24 June)

Letters

Candid disclosure is right

EDITOR,--At first reading we thought the editorial by Jean Ritchie and Sally Davies1 was in response to the wave of antilawyer jokes that has swept North America--for example, "What would you call 100 dead lawyers at the bottom of the sea?" "A good start"; the new version presumably is: "What would you call 100 lawyers owning up to the truth?" "A new beginning, or perhaps a miracle." Nevertheless, better late than never. It was, after all, medical defence lawyers who, until recently, wanted to treat medical accidents like motor vehicle accidents and impressed on all concerned that they should not admit any liability.2

Ritchie and Davies reiterate most of the points that were in our 1986 guidelines as to what to do if things go wrong,3 but they have missed one crucial item. The main reason for candid disclosure is because it is right. Doctors should provide "full disclosure of . . . [Full text of this article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Professional negligence: a duty of candid disclosure?
Jean H Ritchie and Sally C Davies
BMJ 1995 310: 888-889. [Extract] [Full Text]

Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ