R (by her litigation friend) v Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust [2012] EWHC 492 (QB), [2012] All ER (D) 38 (May)
It was established law that a doctor acting in accordance with practice accepted at the relevant time as proper by a reasonable body of medical opinion, skilled in the particular form of treatment in question, did not act in breach of duty merely because another body of competent professional opinion might lead to the adoption of a course different from that taken in the particular case. However, in rare cases, if it was demonstrated that the body of professional opinion criticised was incapable of withstanding logical analysis, the court was entitled to hold that it could not provide a proper benchmark, by reference to which a doctor’s conduct fell to be assessed.
In most cases, the fact that distinguished experts in the field were of a particular opinion would demonstrate the reasonableness of the opinion. The true nature of the duty owed by a doctor was to take reasonable care of the patient in the course of an operation as a whole.
