- Home
- Mission Statement
- Daily Vaccine News
- Daily News Archive
- Sandy's Column
- Sandy, Other
- Adverse Reactions
- Age of Autism - UPI
- Archived Sections
- Blogs
- Books
- Contact
- Donate
- Hilary and Ginger
- Important Notices
- Medical Journals
- Other Websites
- Political Action
- Privacy Statement
- RedFlags Archive
- State Laws
- Testimonials
- Unconventional Wisdom
- Vaccination Council
- Vaccine Research Library
- Vaccines, Pipeline
- Videos
- Video Archive
No-fault compensation systemsVaccination News Home Page Scandals subscribe Vaccination NewsLetter http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7397/997
EditorialsNo-fault compensation systemsExperience elsewhere suggests it is time for the UK to introduce a pilot scheme
In 1978 the Pearson Commission in the United Kingdom rejected a no-fault system in dealing with clinical negligence. While declaring the existing tort system as costly, cumbersome, prone to delay, and too capricious in its operation to be defensible, the commission rejected no-fault compensation on grounds of the difficulty in overhauling the tort liability system and the perceived difficulties in causation judgments.1 A general conservatism in the legal profession and opposition from the insurance industry were other factors. Much has changed in the NHS since then. The long overdue white paper on the reform of the clinical negligence compensation system is much awaited. Reforms to be considered include fixed tariffs for specific injuries, no-fault compensation, alternative dispute resolution, structured payouts instead of large one-off lump sums, and alternative non-cash methods of compensation such as home nursing care.2 The current system is based on the law of tort, which requires the claimant to prove harm caused by a breech of the duty of care. The adversarial and blame orientated nature of this system is not conducive to the culture of openness required by clinical governance and the NHS Plan. Supporters of the current system point to the threat of litigation as a deterrent to substandard care, although the evidence does not support this. Levels of medical litigation are five times as high in the United States than Canada, but no evidence exists that doctors in the United States deliver superior care. Any deterrent role is becoming increasingly redundant in the face of more effective risk management, clinical governance, peer review, and monitoring by hospital authorities and the General Medical Council. In no-fault liability the claimant must show that the medical error was a causative factor in the resultant injury, irrespective of who is to blame (proof of causation rather than proof of fault). Medical accidents are an expected social phenomenon, and losses are calculated through an inquisitorial tribunal, which has access to all relevant documents and independent expert advice. The reduction in legal and administrative costs and a lower level of payouts offset the costs of greater numbers of claimants. The advantage is that claims can be investigated promptly, without the restriction of communication typical of the adversarial process.3 The system is deemed more equitable and efficient by the BMA and the royal colleges. The royal colleges, cognisant that a no-fault system may seem to protect offending doctors, emphasise that negligent professionals would face disciplinary procedures.4 The colleges advocate a twin track system similar to that in Canada, where avoidable healthcare injuries are "designated compensable events" and subject to no-fault liability. The BMA regards the present system as harmful, unpredictable, and unjust for
both patients and medical staff. In the BMA model a no-fault
compensation fund would handle compensation after causation is proved
at a local level. The fund panel would work out compensation
according to predetermined criteria. Smaller claims would be settled
by individual trusts through the complaints procedure. Drug errors
would be excluded as too complicated and expensive.5
A no-fault system in clinical negligence care would not be unique in
the United Kingdom In reforming the system, lessons can be learned from experience in other
countries. A Canadian task force recommended the introduction of
limited no-fault compensation.6 Interestingly,
many of the recommendations mirror the changes advocated by the
NHS Plan and the Woolf reforms New Zealand is the greatest exponent of the no-fault system since it replaced the tort system in 1972 after the report of the Woodhouse Commission. 8 9 Initial teething problems led to criticisms of compensation shortfalls, lack of accountability of doctors, and the definition of medical misadventure (used in place of medical negligence). In 1992 a reformed act was passed to address some of these criticisms and laid heavy emphasis on disciplining doctors at fault. The administrative costs are 10% of income, and the scheme seems to work well in the field of medical litigation.10 However, the minimal cover provided by the act and complete bar on the right to sue remain unique to New Zealand. The socialist legal ideology of Scandinavia also favours a no-fault principle in dealing with medical harm, relying on insurance rather than litigation. Sweden created an insurance system for patients in 1975, based on voluntary agreement, and Norway introduced a similar scheme in 1988. Denmark adopted a mandatory patients' insurance scheme similar to Finland. In France medical negligence claims against the state are handled under an administrative law scheme, separate from the civil justice system and compensation for hospital mistakes is automatic. In the United Kingdom a no-fault system would increase compliance with the
mandatory reporting of adverse clinical events and would facilitate
the culture of openness demanded by clinical governance, the NHS
Plan, and the modern approach to look for errors in the organisations
instead of blaming individuals. 11
12 It should be introduced on a limited pilot basis and monitored
closely for some years. Falkirk Royal Infirmary, Forth Valley Healthcare Trust, Central Scotland FK1
5QE (wgaine@yahoo.co.uk)
Footnotes Competing interests: None declared.
© 2003 BMJ
Publishing Group Ltd
Rapid responses:Read all Rapid responses
ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND
MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION
PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS
OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR
LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND
COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH
YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.
DISCLAIMER: All information, data, and material contained, presented, or provided here is for general information purposes only and is not to be construed as reflecting the knowledge or opinions of the publisher, and is not to be construed or intended as providing medical or legal advice. The decision whether or not to vaccinate is an important and complex issue and should be made by you, and you alone, in consultation with your health care provider.
Copyright 2012 by Vaccination News, A Non-Profit Corporation. All Rights Reserved. This content may not be copied unless permission in writing from Sandy Gottstein has been obtained. 
|
 "A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth." -- Albert Einstein, letter to a friend, 1901 "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William C. Jarvis, September 28, 1820 "What's the point of vaccination if it doesn't protect you from the unvaccinated?" -- Sandy Gottstein "Who gets to decide what the greater good is and how many will be sacrificed to it?" -- Sandy Gottstein |
similar systems exist in workmen's compensation
schemes and police injury cases. 