Doctor's Ethics

12/01/2023

09/09/2021

Jacob Mathew's case, (2005) 6 SCC 1 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that higher the acuteness in emergency and higher the complication, more are the chances of error of judgment. The court further observed as under:-

"25 ......At times, the professional is confronted with making a choice between the devil and the deep sea and he has to choose the lesser evil. The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure. Which course is more appropriate to follow, would depend on the facts and circumstances of a given case. The usual practice prevalent nowadays is to obtain the consent of the patient or of the person in-charge of the patient if the patient is not be in a position to give consent before adopting a given procedure. So long as it can be found that the procedure which was in fact adopted was one which was acceptable to medical science as on that date, the medical practitioner cannot be held negligent merely because he chose to follow one procedure and not another and the result was a failure."

26/08/2021

While referring to earlier judgment in the case of Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1, the court held that the human body and its working is nothing less than a highly complex machine and a physician would not assure the patient of full recovery in every case. The only assurance that such a professional can give or can be understood to have given by implication is that he is possessed of the requisite skill in that branch of profession which they are practising and while undertaking the performance of the task entrusted to them, they would be exercising their skill with reasonable competence.

17/08/2021

Dr. S.K. Jhunjhunwala vs Mrs. Dhanwanti Kumar, Civil Appeal No. 3971 of 2011, decided on 01.10.2018,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court was confronted with the legal question as to how and by which principle, the court should decide on the issue of negligence of a doctor and hold him liable for medical negligence.
It was held that a doctor or surgeon cannot assure and does not guarantee that the result of surgery would invariably be beneficial, much less to the extent of 100 % for the person operated on. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while allowing the appeal held that a professional may be held liable for negligence on one of two findings: either they did not possess the requisite skills that they claimed to have, or they did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which they did possess. The fact that a defendant charged with negligence acted in accordance with the general and approved practice is enough to clear him of the charge.

14/08/2021

Medical ethics encompasses beneficence, autonomy and justice as they relate to conflicts such as euthanasia, patient confidentiality, informed consent, and conflicts of interest in healthcare.