Health Law: Jeremy Hunt's Suggestions on Medical Negligence Law

This essay provides an analysis of health law, focusing on the implications of negligence, tort, and contract law in medical practice. It examines Jeremy Hunt's suggestions regarding the prosecution of doctors for 'honest mistakes' and their impact on medical negligence. The essay explores the application of these concepts to a real-world scenario involving medical malpractice, the law of tort, and contractual agreements between doctors and patients. It critiques the idea that 'honest mistakes' should not lead to prosecution, arguing that such a stance could endanger patients. The essay also addresses the potential for medical negligence, emphasizing the importance of adhering to medical standards of care and the ethical considerations involved in patient well-being. It concludes by highlighting the implications of the allowance of 'honest mistakes' within the context of contractual agreements, emphasizing the need for balanced responsibilities between practitioners and patients. The analysis is supported by relevant references to healthcare law and ethics.

Running head: HEALTH LAW 1
Health Law
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation

2
Health Law
Story
The current news regarding negligence, the law of tort, contract, and emergency care
circumnavigate Jeremy Hunt's suggestion that doctors should not be prosecuted for "honest
mistakes." Jeremy argues that doctors should not be prosecuted in scenarios pertaining to honest
mistakes like harm and murder. Jeremy's utterances came alongside acceptance to the review of
manslaughter charges in the medical field. Mr. Hunt believes that senior doctors in the
examining department have an obligation to review all the death occurrences that have not been
examined by coroners.
Mr. Hunt argues that the current system has a negative implication on the medical sector
(chilling effect) since medical practitioners fail to accept mistakes and lead to a defensive
activity (Schneider, 2019). Mr. Hunt agrees with Professor Sir Norman’s suggestions regarding
reviews in the wake of Dr. Hadiza, who was stripped of her medical license.
The trainee was found guilty of manslaughter in 2015 on the death of Jack Adcock
following the development of sepsis in 2011 (Independent.co.uk, 2018). Tribunal ruled that she
would remain in the career despite the convictions. However, she was later stripped off her
medical license by the General Medical Council after being taken to the high court. The actions
that were taken by the GMC's raised many concerns, especially from doctors who believed
various fundamental aspects had been neglected in the case. Such elements include dangerous
levels of understaffing, staff being required to perform duties under inappropriate conditions, and
failure of the IT system.
For such reasons, Mr. Hunt calls for an understanding of when cases involving gross
negligence manslaughter should be brought to the board. In so doing, medical practitioners will

3
be reassured that they will apply only to cases involving “very poor performance” and not
“honest mistakes."
Application
This story is heavily applicable to our course because some of the suggestions made by
Mr. Hunt have fundamental implications on the law of tort. As studied in the course, it is factual
that a tort is a wrongful act that injures or affects the body, life, health, and property (Schneider,
2019). Therefore, it is uncouth to reason that "honest mistakes" should not be lead to
prosecution. In fact, it is another way of endangering the life of patients by subjecting
practitioners to the immunity of performing honest mistakes. This aspect brings us to medical
negligence. As per the definition, medical negligence is also known as malpractice. In other
words, medical negligence refers to an act or omission of performance that is contrary to the
medical standards of care. In this essence, promoting honest mistakes is like introducing the
ideology in the medical standards of care. Such an operation is unethical, considering the
underlying implication on the welfare of patients (Carman, 2016). Finally, in a contractual
agreement between the doctor and the patient, it would be a breach of contract law to have one
party more advantageous than the other with respect to the consequences of misconduct. Patients
pay for services, and on the other hand, practitioners need to perform their best to restore good
health. Thus, the allowance of honest mistakes advantages practitioners while endangering
patients.

4
References
Carman, N. (2016). Healthcare Law & Ethics. Retrieved from:
http://www.skillscommons.org/handle/taaccct/9750
Independent.co.uk (2018). Doctors should not be prosecuted for ‘honest mistakes,’ says Jeremy
Hunt [online]. Retrieved from: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/jeremy-hunt-
bawa-garba-doctors-honest-mistakes-patient-deaths-criminal-prosecution-a8392871.html
Schneider, A. C. (2019). Defensive medicine practice and effect on healthcare expenditures and
tort reform. Nurse Care Open Acces J, 6(1), 42-44.