Medical doctors, patients and judges will have much greater clarity as to what is negligent and dangerous practice by clinicians and what is careful and reasonable innovation.
This will have two effects.
1/ It will allow good doctors who have the best interests of their patients at heart to innovate safely and responsibly, with the consent of the patient as long as they follow the transparent and accountable procedure that the Bill requires.
Doctors relying on the Medical Innovation Bill will know in advance that as long as they have followed the clear procedures of the Bill they will be protected from negligence claims in regards to the innovative medical intervention they have undertaken.
2/ It will expose mavericks and quacks.
Doctors will be required to follow the accountable and transparent procedure laid out by the Bill – which includes consulting with a multi-disciplinary team of senior medical experts. It will therefore clearly expose the doctor who acts alone and in a reckless way.
Courts will therefore be able to adjudicate on good and bad clinical behaviour. A doctor who follows the correct process will be protected, allowing and encouraging responsible and measured innovation to take place, with the patient’s consent.
A doctor who does not go through the correct procedure and acts alone, as a ‘maverick’ can be clearly and easily identified.
→READ: Dr Max Pemberton – Why I back the pioneer Lord Saatchi
“It is a tragic indictment of modern medicine that innovation is too often jettisoned in favour of the status quo for fear of legal action. Defensive medicine is at the heart of so much clinical practice today, but the Bill – if accepted into law – would deftly excise this, leading the way for doctors to feel free to strive for medical advancement.
“This doesn’t mean that doctors would have free rein to experiment on a patient – they would still be bound by professional guidance and their duty of care would remain to their patient. Nor would it mean that the Bill would become a substitute for proper clinical trials.
“But what it does mean is that, in cases where the evidence is shaky, wanting or not yet clear, the Bill would set out a code by which doctors could try alternatives. It would provide a legal framework by which doctors, in discussion with their patients, could try off-label drugs or a device, treatment or intervention that might have some clinical data supporting it, but has yet to be fully proven.”
Professor Dean Fennell, Chair of Thoracic Medical Oncology, University of Leicester speaks at the House of Lords about why he feels the Medical Innovation Bill could help advance treatments.
Professor Fennell specialises in mesothelioma, a rare cancer most commonly caused by exposure to asbestos.