Evidence-Based Medicine and the Law

Reference work entry

Abstract

Over the last quarter of a century, evidence-based medicine (EBM) has emerged as the dominant paradigm for the diagnosis and treatment of illness. This expectation has now crossed over into the legal domain. Practitioners who provide clinical services on the basis of belief, intuition, and experience alone are increasingly marginalized and exposed to disciplinary and civil actions for engaging in provision of care that does not have a proper medico-scientific base. This chapter reviews a series of the United Kingdom and Australian disciplinary decisions that have resulted in adverse findings against medical practitioners for such forms of unorthodox and dubious clinical practice.

Keywords

Medical Practitioner Stem Cell Therapy Spinal Manipulation General Medical Council Sodium Chlorite 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;312(7023):71–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Herr JW. Civilae, stomnes and statistics: the dawn of evidence based medicine. BJU Int. 2009;104(3):100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guyatt G. Evidence-based medicine. ASP J Club. 1991;114:A-16.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cook DJ, Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH. Critical appraisal of therapeutic interventions in the intensive care unit: human monoclonal antibody treatment in sepsis. Journal club of the Hamilton regional critical care group. J Intensive Care Med. 1992;7(6):275.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dawes M, et al. Sicily statement on evidence-based practice. BMC Educ. 2005;5:1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gavgani VZ, Mohan VV. Physicians’ attitude towards evidence-based medical practice and health science library services. Libr Inform Sci Res Electron J. 2008;18(1):1–10.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    General medical council v Meadow [2006] EWCA Civ 1390.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Freckelton I, Selby H. Expert evidence: law, practice, procedure and advocacy. 5th ed. Sydney: Thomson; 2013 (in press).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Freckelton I. Erosion of the witness immunity rule. Psychia, Psychol Law. (in press); 20: 2012.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Freckelton I. Expert evidence accountability: new developments and challenges. J Law Med. 2011;19:209–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    See e.g. Noone, Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Operation Smile (Australian Inc [2012] VSCA 91.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Re Dr McDonogh. 2010, http://www.gmc-uk.org/static/documents/content/McDonogh(1).pdf, viewed 2011 Dec 10.
  14. 14.
    Re Dr Trossel. 2010, http://www.gmc-uk.org/static/documents/content/Trossel.pdf, viewed 2011 Dec 10.
  15. 15.
    Traill v Medical practitioners board [2006] VCAT 1920.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harris RP et al. Current methods of the US preventive services task force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med. 2001 Apr 20;(3 Supplement):21.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Medical board of Queensland v Tarvydas [2010] QCAT 246.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Medical board of Australia v O’Sullivan [2011] QCAT 135.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Freckelton I. Misplaced hope: misleading health service practitioner representations and consumer protection. J Law Med. 2012;20:7–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Law and PsychiatryUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.Forensic Medicine and Forensic PsychologyMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations