Re: The “Saatchi bill” will allow responsible innovation in treatment
The BMA’s Medical Academic Staff Committee shares many of the concerns expressed in the pages of the BMJ regarding the Medical Innovation Bill. We too are unaware of any doctors having come to the BMA for support because they feared litigation following an innovative treatment. As doctors in the United Kingdom continue to make tremendous advances in treatment, across all disciplines, it is clear to us that progress in medicine is not restricted by the threat of litigation. We believe that the current regime, operating under the so-called “Bolam” rules, ensures that there is ample scope for the individualised treatment that appears to be a key motivation behind the proposed legislation.
As doctors and researchers, however, we fear that the Bill itself is not neutral: it will damage medical research. Such research is best undertaken by teams of clinicians, supported by evidence and working closely with patients in a mutually beneficial relationship. The success of the relationship with patients both as participants in clinical trials and as providers of samples and data is built on trust. If doctors no longer needed to act in accordance with scientific or medical principles, and were free to discard any information or opinion which they considered irrelevant, they would rightly risk losing the trust of patients and with it their active participation in medical research.
The Bill does nothing to help doctors make informed decisions regarding an innovative treatment or ensure that a proper record is kept and shared of the outcomes of the innovation. An effective and well-supported network of clinical ethics committees would provide local professional support to doctors faced with the difficult decisions envisaged by the proponents of the Bill.
Innovation is best supported by having appropriately trained clinical staff, through strong clinical networks and by patient trust. Anything which strengthens these would be a valuable aid to further progress. The Medical Innovation Bill in its present form will have no positive effect in these essential areas.
Dr Peter Dangerfield, Co-Chair, Medical Academic Staff Committee
Professor Michael Rees, Co-Chair, Medical Academic Staff Committee
Professor David Katz, Deputy Co-Chair, Medical Academic Staff Committee
Dr Marcia Schofield, Deputy Co-Chair, Medical Academic Staff Committee
Rapid Response:
Re: The “Saatchi bill” will allow responsible innovation in treatment
The BMA’s Medical Academic Staff Committee shares many of the concerns expressed in the pages of the BMJ regarding the Medical Innovation Bill. We too are unaware of any doctors having come to the BMA for support because they feared litigation following an innovative treatment. As doctors in the United Kingdom continue to make tremendous advances in treatment, across all disciplines, it is clear to us that progress in medicine is not restricted by the threat of litigation. We believe that the current regime, operating under the so-called “Bolam” rules, ensures that there is ample scope for the individualised treatment that appears to be a key motivation behind the proposed legislation.
As doctors and researchers, however, we fear that the Bill itself is not neutral: it will damage medical research. Such research is best undertaken by teams of clinicians, supported by evidence and working closely with patients in a mutually beneficial relationship. The success of the relationship with patients both as participants in clinical trials and as providers of samples and data is built on trust. If doctors no longer needed to act in accordance with scientific or medical principles, and were free to discard any information or opinion which they considered irrelevant, they would rightly risk losing the trust of patients and with it their active participation in medical research.
The Bill does nothing to help doctors make informed decisions regarding an innovative treatment or ensure that a proper record is kept and shared of the outcomes of the innovation. An effective and well-supported network of clinical ethics committees would provide local professional support to doctors faced with the difficult decisions envisaged by the proponents of the Bill.
Innovation is best supported by having appropriately trained clinical staff, through strong clinical networks and by patient trust. Anything which strengthens these would be a valuable aid to further progress. The Medical Innovation Bill in its present form will have no positive effect in these essential areas.
Dr Peter Dangerfield, Co-Chair, Medical Academic Staff Committee
Professor Michael Rees, Co-Chair, Medical Academic Staff Committee
Professor David Katz, Deputy Co-Chair, Medical Academic Staff Committee
Dr Marcia Schofield, Deputy Co-Chair, Medical Academic Staff Committee
Competing interests: No competing interests