Despite the pronounced interest in “challenges to professional dominance” in Britain, medical malpractice has been subject to little empirical attention. There has been a flurry of policy activity within the National Health Service over the last six or so years and a steady stream of commentary from professional bodies, yet we know very little about the views of various medical practitioners who occupy different positions in the professional hierarchy. This article explores the views of (first and fifth year) medical students and considers the extent to which they cohere with the public discourse of medical elites. The author suggests that while individual practice is the focal concern for medical students who seem acutely aware and concerned about litigation, elites construct malpractice as a macro economic-legal problem, strategically severing the association between individual practice and the experience of a malpractice suit.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SmithR.The epidemiology of malpractice. BMJ301:621–622, 1990.
2.
Royal College of Physicians. Compensation for Adverse Consequences of Medical Litigation. London, 1990.
RosenthalM. M.Dealing with Medical Malpractice: The British and Swedish Experience. Tavistock, London, 1987.
5.
DingwallR.Socio-legal Aspects of Medical Practice. Royal College of Physicians, London, 1989.
6.
DingwallR.Litigation and the threat to medicine. In Challenging Medicine, edited by GabeJ.KelleherD.WilliamsG., pp. 46–64. Routledge, London, 1994.
7.
HarrisJ.The price of failure. Health Serv. J., April 14, 1994, p. 609.
8.
Department of Health. Working for Patients. Cmnd 555. HMSO, London, 1989.
9.
LongleyD.Public Law and Health Service Accountability. Open University Press, Buckingham, 1993.
10.
AnnandaleE.The malpractice crisis and the doctor-patient relationship. Sociol. Health Illness11: 1–23, 1989.
11.
FreidsonE.Professional Powers: A Study of the Institutionalization of Formal Knowledge. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1986.
12.
HarrisonS.PollittC.Controlling Health Professions. Open University Press, Buckingham, 1994.
13.
HaffertyW.McKinlayJ. B.The Changing Character of the Medical Profession: An International Perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1993.
14.
HunterD.From tribalism to corporatism: The managerial challenge to medical dominance. In Challenging Medicine, edited by GabeJ.KelleherD.WilliamsG., pp. 1–22. Routledge, London, 1994.
15.
LightD.Countervailing powers: A framework for professions in transition. In Health Professions and the State in Europe, edited by JohnsonT.LarkinG.SaksM., pp. 25–41. Routledge, London, 1995.
16.
BlumsteinJ. F.Responsibility and accountability in provider-patient relationships. Circulation66(Suppl. III): 91–99, 1982.
17.
LenkeR. R.NemesJ. M.Wrongful birth, wrongful life: The doctor between a rock and a hard place. Obstet. Gynaecol.66: 719–722, 1985.
18.
CarrierJ.KendallI.Medical Negligence: Complaints and Procedures. Gower, Aldershot, 1990.
19.
TribeD. M. R.KorgaonkarG. J. A.Liability and litigation trends. Br. J. Hosp. Med.43: 2177–220, 1990.
20.
President and Fellows of Harvard College. The Harvard Practice Study: Patients, Doctors, and Lawyers: Medical Injury, Malpractice Litigation, and Patient Compensation in New York. Cambridge, Mass., 1990.
21.
LocalioA. R.Relationship between malpractice claims and adverse events due to negligence. N. Engl. J. Med.325: 245–251, 1991.
22.
BrennanT. A.Practice guide-lines and malpractice litigation: Collision or cohesion?J. Health Polit. Policy Law16: 67–85, 1991.
23.
HamC.Medical Negligence: Compensation and Accountability. Center for Socio-legal Studies, Oxford/Kings Fund Institute, London, 1988.
24.
Medical Protection Society. Medical Negligence: Addressing the Issues. London, 1988.
25.
BowlesR.JonesP.Rising costs of claims. Health Serv. J., March 9, 1989, pp. 294–295.
26.
JamesC.Risk management in obstetrics and gynaecology. J. Medical Defence Union2:36–37, 1991.
27.
PinkerG.Compensation: Is there a better system? In Compensation and Accountability, edited by WallJ. D., pp. 60–63. Medical Defence Union Ltd/Mercury, London, 1992.
DingwallR.FennP.QuamL.Medical Negligence: A Review and Bibliography. Center for Socio-legal studies, Oxford, 1991.
30.
British Medical Association. No-fault Compensation Working Party. D/D22. London, February 1987.
31.
British Medical Association. Annual Report of Council. London, 1992.
32.
SimanowitzA.Medical accidents: The problem and the challenge. In Medicine in Contemporary Society, edited by ByrneP., pp. 117–139. King Edwards Hospital Fund, London, 1987.
OrrC.How to minimise litigation. Br. J. Hosp. Med.42: 439, 1989.
37.
UnderwoodM. J.ThompsonM.McCaskieA.Insight of first-year medical students into their future working careers. Med. Educ.24: 210–211, 1990.
38.
FennP.DingwallR.The tort system and information: Some comparisons between the UK and US. In Quality and Regulation in Health Care: International Experiences, edited by DingwallR.FennP., pp. 11–25. Routledge, London, 1992.
39.
WallJ.Is litigation bad for your health?J. Medical Defence Union3: 54–56, 1991.
40.
PinkerG.Accountability: Is there a better system? In Compensation and Accountability, edited by WallJ. D., pp. 3–5. Medical Defence Union Ltd/Mercury, London, 1992.
41.
National Health Service Executive. Junior Doctors, the New Deal. London, 1991.
42.
HuntL.Doctors in call for no-fault damages. Independent, December 11, 1990.
43.
BlackN.Medical litigation and the quality of care. Lancet335: 35–37, 1990.
44.
PrenticeT.Mothers are ‘put at risk’ by doctors' fears of being sued says new research. Times (London), September 6, 1991.
45.
SummertonN.Positive and negative factors in defensive medicine: A questionnaire study of general practitioners. BMJ310: 27–29, 1995.
46.
FieldingS.The social construction of the medical malpractice crisis: A case study of Massachusetts physicians. Sociol. Forum5: 279–295, 1990.
47.
WilkieT.Hospital injuries kill more people than road accidents. Independent, February 11, 1992.
48.
QuamL.FennP.DingwallR.Medical malpractice in perspective II—Implications for Britain. BMJ294: 1597–1600, 1987.
49.
QuamL.DingwallR.FennP.Medical malpractice claims in obstetrics and gynaecology: Comparisons between the United States and Britain. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol.95: 454–461, 1988.
50.
GarfieldJ.Head injuries and litigation. J. Medical Defence Union7: 2, 1991.
51.
RichardsT.Chasms in communication. BMJ301: 1407–1408, 1990.
52.
HawkinsC.Mishap or Malpractice?Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, 1985.
53.
ScottW.Medical negligence: Should doctors worry?J. Medical Defence Union, Summer 1990, pp. 38–39.
54.
ClementsR.Litigation in obstetrics and gynaecology. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol.98: 423–426, 1991.
55.
BoskC.Mistaking identity: Medical errors, physicians and plaintiffs attorneys. Trans. Stud. Coll. Physicians Phila. 13: 249–261, 1991.
56.
DanielsS.The pragmatic management of error and the antecedents of disputes over the quality of medical care. In Quality and Regulation in Health Care: International Experiences, edited by DingwallR.FennP., pp. 112–140. Routledge, London, 1992.
57.
SmithR.The GMC on performance. BMJ304: 1257–1258, 1992.
58.
StaceyM.Medical accountability: A background paper. In Challenges to Medical Care, edited by GrubA., pp. 109–139. John Wiley, Chichester, 1992.
59.
LightD.Toward a new sociology of medical education. J. Health Soc. Behav.29: 307–233, 1988.
