BackgroundObstetrics and gynaecology always has reputation for being a highly litigious. The field of obstetrics and gynaecology is surrounded by different circumstances that stimulate the doctors to practice defensive medicine.MethodsThis study was directed to assess the extent and the possible effect of defensive medicine phenomenon on medical decision making among different grades of obstetric and gynaecologic Sudanese doctors, and to determine any experience of medical litigations with respect to sources and factors associated with it.ResultsA total of 117 doctors were approached, (...) their distribution according to job description was as follow: consultants registrars and specialists. The majority 89.7 % had the impression that litigation against doctors are increasing and 27.6 % had a direct experience of litigation. In this study less than one half of the surveyed doctors knew the concept of defensive medicine and 71.8 % reported practicing one or another form of defensive medicine. The different sources of the litigations reported by the doctors included: maternal death, perinatal death, other {misdiagnosis, intra-uterine fetal death, uterine perforation, rupture uterus}, fetal distress, injury to viscera and shoulder dystocia. In this study the experience of medical litigation was significantly observed among those who worked in area of blame culture. In logistic regression model, there was no significant difference between those who knew the concept of defence medicine and those who didn’t.ConclusionThere should be strategic plan to reduce the practice of defensive medicine and medical litigation against doctors. (shrink)

In their paper ’Too much medicine: not enough trust?' Zoë Fritz and Richard Holton explore the connection between trust and overtreatment and overinvestigation. Whilst their paper is insightful, here I argue that much more could be made of a doctor’s trust and how this exacerbates overtreatment and overinvestigation. By taking Fritz and Holton’s view of trust as having ‘our best interests at heart’ as my starting point, I argue that doctor’s do not always trust that patients or the system has (...) their interests at heart and so use overtreatment and overinvestigation to protect themselves. I also point to the tensions created by a lack of trust on the doctor’s part as a focal point for much needed sustained ethical analysis. (shrink)

Decision theorists recognise that information is valuable only insofar as it has the potential to change a decision. This means that since acquiring more information is time-consuming and sometimes expensive, judgements need to be made about what information is most valuable to acquire, and whether it is worth acquiring at all. In this article I apply this idea to informed consent and argue that the most valuable information relates not to what the best treatment option may be but to possible (...) futures a patient may regret. I conclude by proposing a regret-minimisation framework for informed consent that I contend better captures the true nature of shared decision making than existing formulations. (shrink)

In 2014, Lord Saatchi launched his ultimately unsuccessful Medical Innovation Bill in the UK. Its laudable aim was to free doctors from the shackles that prevented them from providing responsible innovative treatment. Lord Saatchi’s principal contention was that current law was the unsurmountable barrier that prevented clinicians from delivering innovative treatments to cancer patients when conventional options had failed. This was because doctors feared that they might be sued or tried and convicted of gross negligence manslaughter if they deviated from (...) standard practice. Concerns about fear of the law and potential negative effects on medical practice are not new. Fear of litigation has been suggested as the reason for doctors practising “defensive medicine,” by opting for treatments regarded as “grievance-resistant,” rather than clinically indicated, for example, by ordering diagnostic tests or performing certain procedures, which are not strictly medically necessary. Whilst this claim is plausible and apparently accepted by the courts, there is limited empirical evidence in support of it so far as practitioners in the UK are concerned. In this paper, we report on our empirical research which provides a snapshot of medical opinion to begin to rectify this gap. We ran focus groups of different medical specialties, asking what these medical practitioners thought the barriers to medical innovation to be. We found that fear of the law was not the principal barrier to be lowered, and that the answer was far more multifaceted. (shrink)

Background Defensive medicine is physicians’ deviation from standard medical care which is primarily intended either to reduce or avoid medico legal litigation. Although the Federal Ethics Committee review in Ethiopia has shown that applications for medical/surgical error investigation claims are increasing at an alarming rate, there is no study to date done to estimate the degree of defensive practice done by the physicians with an intention of avoiding this increasing legal claim. This study assessed the practice of defensive medicine among (...) highly litigious disciplines (surgery) and described factors associated with its practice. Methods Cross sectional quantitative study using online survey questionnaires was conducted to assess the degree of defensive practice and six factors (age, years of experience, specialty, monthly income, place of practice and previous medico legal history) associated with its practice were assessed among surgeons working in Ethiopia. Results A total of 430 surgeons directly received an online survey questionnaire and 236 of them successfully completed the questionnaire making the response rate 51.2%. Nearly half of the study participants (51.7%) were aware of the concept of defensive medicine and 174 (74%) reported performing one form of defensive practice. Twenty-nine (12.3%) of the participants have legal dispute history, though only 1.3% of them ended up in penalty. Avoiding high risk procedures was the commonest defensive act performed by 60% of the participants, followed by ordering tests unnecessarily (52.1%). Multinomial logistic regression model showed that there was no association between age of the participant, place of practice, year of experience and defensive practice. This model also showed that cardiothoracic and vascular surgeons perform less defensively than surgeons with other specialty with P value of 0.02. Conclusion The practice of defensive medicine is widespread among surveyed Ethiopian surgeons and further studies are required to objectively estimate the effect of defensive practice on the health care system of the country. Policy makers need to develop strategy towards decreasing this high rate of defensive practice. (shrink)

BackgroundDefensive medicine (DM) practice refers to the ordering or prescription of unnecessary treatments or tests while avoiding risky procedures for critically ill patients with the aim to alleviate the physician’s legal responsibility and preserve reputation. Although DM practice is recognized, its dimensions are still uncertain. The subject has been highly investigated in developed countries, but unfortunately, many developing countries are unable to investigate it properly. DM has many serious ramifications, exemplified by the increase in treatment costs for patients and health (...) systems, patients’ exposure to risks, and negative effects on the psychological health of both health providers and recipients. Ultimately, the most serious consequence is the ethical consequences.MethodsThis work is based on a review of the literature related to DM worldwide and a comparison with the available knowledge found in Jordan. It is qualitative with a descriptive nature, aiming to diagnose the current DM practice in Jordan.ResultsThis is the first published article that discusses DM in Jordan by diagnosing its ethical and economic consequences for the health system as well as for patients. Despite the knowledge of the reasons that support its practice, little is being done to solve this issue. The absence of agreeable medical malpractice law, the dearth of unified medical protocols, the overwhelming pressure imposed by patients on medical staff, and the deteriorating patient-physician relationship are some of the causes of DM practice. Surely, the solution to these issues is to focus on fortifying the ethical and humanitarian aspects on the side of both the physician and the patient to ensure positive collaboration. The ethical aim of the physician to treat the patient faithfully and do what is possible to help combined with the appreciation of the physician’s efforts and the choice to not take advantage of the physician through litigation could be the most reasonable solution in the near future.ConclusionJordan is suffering from DM due to the limited financial expenditure on the health sector and the impracticality of medical malpractice law. The authors highlight that the cardinal step in solving this dilemma is restoring the ethical dimension of the patient-physician relationship. (shrink)

Obstetrics and gynaecology always has reputation for being a highly litigious. The field of obstetrics and gynaecology is surrounded by different circumstances that stimulate the doctors to practice defensive..