Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Part 33.1(a),Civil Procedure Rules('CPR') says, " ‘hearsay’ means a
statement made, otherwise than by a person while giving oral evidence in
proceedings, which is tendered as evidence of the matters stated".
In reality,a clinical negligence claim that has reached the trial
stage,is unlikely to be completed without hearing live evidence from
relevant experts.Hence,reference by an expert to clinical guidelines in
the context of a clinical negligence hearing could hardly be described as
hearsay evidence. Further, Dr Mohanty's view that "Hearsay evidence is
always accepted in civil court proceedings"[1] should be subject to
express conditions set out under Part 33,CPR. The Civil Evidence Act 1995
now governs issues relating to hearsay evidence in civil proceedings.
The assertion that "guidelines are therefore better than a
responsible body of medical opinion"[1] is rather confusing, among other
things, as the two are most inextricably linked.After all, guidelines are
supposed to be formulated by leading experts as part of a responsible
medical body.Just as an expert opinion, clinical guidelines need to
withstand the rigour of Bolam principles(as revised in Bolitho) if it were
to gain any credibility in a Court setting.
References
[1]Kailash C Mohanty.
Influence of guidelines in determining medical negligence
BMJ 2005; 330: 1086-b-1087-b
Hearsay,Clinical Negligence & Guidelines
Part 33.1(a),Civil Procedure Rules('CPR') says, " ‘hearsay’ means a
statement made, otherwise than by a person while giving oral evidence in
proceedings, which is tendered as evidence of the matters stated".
In reality,a clinical negligence claim that has reached the trial
stage,is unlikely to be completed without hearing live evidence from
relevant experts.Hence,reference by an expert to clinical guidelines in
the context of a clinical negligence hearing could hardly be described as
hearsay evidence. Further, Dr Mohanty's view that "Hearsay evidence is
always accepted in civil court proceedings"[1] should be subject to
express conditions set out under Part 33,CPR. The Civil Evidence Act 1995
now governs issues relating to hearsay evidence in civil proceedings.
The assertion that "guidelines are therefore better than a
responsible body of medical opinion"[1] is rather confusing, among other
things, as the two are most inextricably linked.After all, guidelines are
supposed to be formulated by leading experts as part of a responsible
medical body.Just as an expert opinion, clinical guidelines need to
withstand the rigour of Bolam principles(as revised in Bolitho) if it were
to gain any credibility in a Court setting.
References
[1]Kailash C Mohanty.
Influence of guidelines in determining medical negligence
BMJ 2005; 330: 1086-b-1087-b
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests