Intended for healthcare professionals

Rapid response to:

Opinion

What implications does the Toombes vs Mitchell case have for other healthcare professionals?

BMJ 2022; 376 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.o162 (Published 20 January 2022) Cite this as: BMJ 2022;376:o162

Rapid Response:

Re: What implications does the Toombes vs Mitchell case have for other healthcare professionals?

Dear Editor
The judges comments re notes seem to my contemporaries of that time to be not based on what was normal practice. The fact that any mention of folic acid advice was recorded is to be praised not criticised.
It seems strange also that the judge is swayed by memories of a conversation that took place 20 year before when we know that people recall accurately only a tiny portion of what takes place in a consultation even when reviewed on leaving the consulting room.
What we don't record seems potentially now even more important . If it is someones belief (held strongly but not necessarily true) for example that the doctor (or midwife) did not warn them re alcohol in pregnancy, pertussis jabs, covid jabs and many many other pregnancy health advice options they may be held to be at fault for any harm to mother or baby 20 plus years later. Plainly an impossible situation and it surprises many that this decision has not be appealed.
And as the BMJ has said this week why was the GP the target of this litigation but not public health , the education system national food policy etc.
Equally sad is that many young women are unaware of the need for folate supplements pre pregnancy and in the first trimester and those needing higher dose may not see a health care person until booking with a midwife by which time it may be too late

Competing interests: No competing interests

21 January 2022
john sharvill
GP
NHS
Kent