Insight

Medical Negligence - The new legal test in Singapore to determine the standard of a doctor's duty in advising his patient

Medical Negligence - The new legal test in Singapore to determine the standard of a doctor's duty in advising his patient

Siang Pheng Lek

Siang Pheng Lek

September 24, 2019 12:48 AM

Introduction

The Singapore Court of Appeal has in its recent judgment in the case of Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien and another [2017] SGCA 38 (Hii Chii Kok v London Lucien Ooi) delivered on 12 May 2017, decided that the Bolam test (as supplemented by the Bolitho addendum) (referred to herein simply as “the Bolam test”) is no longer the applicable legal test to adjudicate on the appropriate standard of care of a medical practitioner in the provision of medical advice to his patient. The Court of Appeal has ruled that a new 3-stage, patient-centric legal test ought to be applied.

In the area of medical negligence, the contentious aspects of medical care can be broadly categorised into three aspects, namely, (a) diagnosis – establishing what the patient’s medical condition is; (b) advice – presenting information regarding what should be done (treatment options), reasonable alternatives, and the risks attendant on the various options; and (c) treatment.

Previously, the Singapore Court had applied the Bolam test to adjudicate the standard of care required in all three aspects of medical care, in order to determine whether there was medical negligence on the part of the doctor. Under the Bolam test, a doctor is not liable in negligence if he can demonstrate that there is a respectable and responsible body of medical opinion, logically arrived, that accepts the doctor’s practice as proper.

The decision of the Court of Appeal in Hii Chii Kok v London Lucien Ooi is that:

  1. Diagnosis and Treatment: The Bolam test should continue to apply; and
  2. Advice: There is a new 3-stage test.

The Court of Appeal’s explanation for not applying the Bolam test to the issue of standard of care for a doctor’s advice to his patient

The Court of Appeal considered that the material difference between the three aspects of medical care lies in the degree of passivity on the part of the patient. With regard to diagnosis and treatment, the patient is a passive participant. In contrast, when advice is being furnished to the patient, it is the patient who is in charge and must make the choices and decisions, that is, the patient assumes an active role. The doctor’s function is to empower and enable the patient to make that decision by giving him the relevant and material information.

At the time the Bolam test was articulated (in 1957), much less emphasis was placed on the principle of autonomy than the principle of beneficence. Doctors were thought to know best and thus, it was considered acceptable to keep a patient in the dark as to the risks and alternative treatment relating to his illness if this would make him more likely to undergo the treatment that was, in the doctor’s opinion, best for the patient’s health.

There has since been a “seismic shift” in “medical ethics” and “societal attitudes towards the practice of medicine”, that warrants a new legal test to adjudicate the advice aspect of a doctor-patient relationship. In arriving at this view, the Court of Appeal observed, among others, the emphasis placed by the Singapore Medical Council’s Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines (2016 Edition) (2016 ECEG), which came into force on 1 January 2017, on the need to respect patient autonomy and the doctors’ obligation to uphold their patient’s “desire to be adequately informed and (where relevant) their desire for self-determination”. The Court of Appeal noted that the 2016 ECEG reflected the fact that the “nature of the doctor-patient relationship has evolved together with the level of education and access to knowledge of the ordinary Singaporean”. The discussion on which treatment to pursue is “now best seen as a collaborative process involving the doctor and the patient”.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal declared that the Bolam test should no longer be applied to the aspect of a doctor’s advice to his patient given that it “does not allow any room for the patient’s perspective”.

The new 3-stage test applicable to determine the standard of care in respect of a doctor’s advice to his patient

Stage 1

The first stage assesses the sufficiency of information given to the patient from the patient’s perspective. At this first stage, the patient is required to identify the exact nature of the information that he alleges was not given to him and establish why it would be regarded as relevant and material. Information which should be disclosed is (a) information that would be relevant and material to a reasonable patient situated in the particular patient’s position, or (b) information that a doctor knows is important to the particular patient in question.

Information which should be disclosed is not limited to risk-related information. Information that should be disclosed includes (a) the doctor’s diagnosis of the patient’s condition; (b) the prognosis of that condition with and without medical treatment; (c) the nature of the proposed medical treatment; (d) the risks associated with the proposed medical treatment; and (e) the alternatives to the proposed medical treatment, and the advantages and risks of those alternatives.

The inquiry at this first stage is “largely a matter of common sense.” Remote risks with minor consequences or very severe consequences with very low chances of occurring will generally be deemed immaterial, and do not have to be disclosed.

The Court of Appeal made clear that the doctor’s duty to advise is not satisfied by conducting an “information dump”, which tends to cause the patient to be more confused and less able to make a proper decision. The doctor must ensure that the “information given is presented ‘in terms and at a pace’ that allows the patient to assimilate it, thereby enabling him to make informed decisions”.

A contextualised approach is also adopted at this stage of inquiry to determine the personal circumstances of the patient. While a doctor has “no open-ended duty to proactively elicit information from the patient and will not be at risk of being found liable owing to idiosyncratic concerns of the patient unless this was made known to the doctor or the doctor has reason to believe it to be so”, it should be borne in mind that information may be rendered relevant and material pursuant to the particular questions asked or particular concerns expressed by the patient.

Stage 2

The Court determines at this second stage of the inquiry whether the doctor was in possession of the information (which pursuant to the first stage of the inquiry is relevant and material).

The inquiry stops at this stage if the doctor is shown to not have the information at the material time. A separate inquiry may arise in respect of any negligence in diagnosis or treatment (but not advice) if the doctor does not have the information “because he did not conduct the procedure which would have discovered that information or because he lacked the factual or technical knowledge to realise that a particular risk or alternative treatment existed”.

Stage 3

If the Court is satisfied that the doctor possessed the information which the patient has demonstrated is relevant and material, at this third stage of the inquiry, the doctor has the burden to justify why he chose to withhold the information.

The assessment at this stage is from the doctor’s perspective. The Court will decide if the doctor was justified to withhold the information having regard to “the doctor’s reasons for withholding the information and then considering whether this was a sound judgment having regard to the standards of a reasonable and competent doctor”. Expert evidence may be helpful but not necessarily determinative in the consideration of whether the doctor’s withholding of information was a sound judgment (otherwise, it will effectively be the application of the Bolam test).

Three instances whereby the withholding of information may be justified:

  1. Waiver situation – Where the patient expressly indicated that he does not want to receive further information about the proposed treatment or alternatives;
  2. Emergency situation – Where life-saving treatment is required and the patient temporarily lacks decision-making capacity and no appropriate substitute decision-maker can be found. The Bolam test will continue to apply in this context; and
  3. Therapeutic privilege – Where although the patient has mental capacity, his decision-making capabilities are impaired to an appreciable degree such that the doctor reasonably believes that the very act of giving particular information would cause the patient serious physical or mental harm. For example, patients with anxiety disorders.

Implications and takeaways

As there is now a need to determine the sufficiency of information based on a reasonable patient situated in the particular patient’s position, doctors may have to apply their minds to whether any questions posed or concerns expressed by the patient during the consultations are out of the ordinary. Such information obtained from the patient will assist in the determination of how much more the doctor has to discuss with the patient, in order to empower the patient to make his or her decision. The doctor has to carefully consider whether there are additional risks, possible complications or any other information which may be material to this particular patient, and for which the doctor should raise for discussion with the patient.

Simply going through the list of risks and possible complications in patient information sheets and consent addendum forms may not be sufficient. Doctors have to constantly apply their minds to the issue of whether there is anything on top of what is contained in the consent documents which needs to be raised with the patient.

Lastly, the importance of careful documentation by doctors of discussions with their patients was specifically underscored by the Court of Appeal in Hii Chii Kok v London Lucien Ooi in response to the argument raised that there could be situations whereby even properly informed patients may pursue negligence advice claims, for instance whereby perhaps under the fog of illness, the patient denies ever being apprised of a risk.

Related Articles

IN PARTNERSHIP

Protecting Patients, Families and the Public


by Justin Smulison

Thousands of patients experience unfathomable pain while being treated. Some turn to Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder PC for justice, empathic counsel and results.

Group of lawyers gathering for a firm photo

IN PARTNERSHIP

Easton & Easton: Let Our Family Help Yours


by Justin Smulison

For more than 50 years, Easton & Easton have continued to be the go-to trial law firm for injury and wrongful death claims in Southern California in 2023.

Group of lawyers pose at table with globe in forefront

Understanding Statute of Limitations in Personal Injury Cases


by Best Lawyers

In personal injury cases, the statute of limitations can vary depending on several factors. To navigate the process, consider hiring a legal professional.

Animated woman holding a clock and coin while balancing on plank

The Benefits of Hiring a Lawyer for Medical Negligence Cases


by Best Lawyers

Best Lawyers assesses the complex nature of medical negligence litigation and why hiring an experienced lawyer could impact the outcome of your claim.

Woman in hospital gown sits on bed

What Exactly Does a Medical Negligence Lawyer Do?


by Best Lawyers

Medical negligence, known as malpractice, happens when healthcare professionals fail to provide the level of care that is required for their patient. In order to hire the right representation for you, here's a list of their key responsibilities.

Medical professional holds pill bottle standing over patient in bed

IN PARTNERSHIP

Boston’s Top Legal Team in the Fight to Prevent Medical Errors


by Justin Smulison

Studies show an alarming increase in avoidable medical errors in hospitals. Lubin & Meyer founder and patient safety advocate, Andrew C. Meyer, Jr. is not surprised.

Suited lawyers surround conference table for picture

Protecting Small Business Owners: Trial Experts Connick Law LLC Notoriously Successful with Fire Litigation


by Justin Smulison

When small business owners become the target of insurance companies in fire-related lawsuits, hiring a firm with a reputation for understanding the science of fire suppression trials can save their livelihoods.

Gold Indoor Sprinkler Heads on Red Background

Unwavering Dedication to Clients


by Best Lawyers

Trial attorneys Michael Lyons and Chris Simmons find motivation when the result means everything.

Trial Attorneys at Lyons & Simmons

Truck Safety Watchdogs


by Best Lawyers

Unqualified, Poorly Trained Truck Drivers and Unsafe Trucks Heighten Roadway Dangers

Truck Safety and Roadway Dangers

Will Recent Boeing Settlements Create Tailwinds In Corporate Law?


by Justin Smulison

Prominent litigation against Boeing is setting a precedent of accountability, professionalism and commitment among company boards as well as ushering ESG further into the courtroom to help monitor and prevent safety issues.

Recent Boeing Settlements and Corporate Law

Pennsylvania’s Best Lawyers 2022


by Best Lawyers

Our Pennsylvania’s Best Lawyers 2022 digital publication features top-ranked legal talent in Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania’s Best Lawyers 2022

Cost to Boss


by Gregory Sirico

New Colorado legislation aims to stop employers from dodging direct negligence claims.

Employers Dodge Direct Negligence Claims

Colorado's Best Lawyers 2022


by Best Lawyers

Our 2022 Colorado's Best Lawyers publication features top-ranked legal talent in Boulder, Denver and Western Colorado.

Colorado's Best Lawyers 2022

Newly Launched COVID-19 Litigation Project Offers Open Access To Pandemic-Related Court Judgments From Over 70 Countries


by Sara Collin

A worldwide database of COVID-19 cases is uniting more than 70 countries as judges, lawmakers and lawyers continue to navigate pandemic related litigation and the ways in which it’s evolving amid year three.

COVID-19 Worldwide Litigation Project

Look for the Zoom Label


by Anne R. Yuengert and Matthew C. Lonergan

Will the virtual platforms that got such a boost during the pandemic replace how you interact with your employees, unions, and lawyers?

Virtual Platforms Replacing Work Interactions

Discovery in the Time of COVID-19


by H. Barber Boone

The pandemic has affected the vital process of legal discovery in ways both good and bad. Which changes are likely to become widely accepted in the years ahead?

The Impact of COVID-19 on E-Discovery

Trending Articles

The 2024 Best Lawyers in Spain™


by Best Lawyers

Best Lawyers is honored to announce the 16th edition of The Best Lawyers in Spain™ and the third edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in Spain™ for 2024.

Tall buildings and rushing traffic against clouds and sun in sky

Presenting The Best Lawyers in Australia™ 2025


by Best Lawyers

Best Lawyers is proud to present The Best Lawyers in Australia for 2025, marking the 17th consecutive year of Best Lawyers awards in Australia.

Australia flag over outline of country

Best Lawyers Expands Chilean 2024 Awards


by Best Lawyers

Best Lawyers is pleased to announce the 14th edition of The Best Lawyers in Chile™ and the inaugural edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in Chile™, honoring the top lawyers and firms conferred on by their Chilean peers.

Landscape of city in Chile

Best Lawyers Expands 2024 Brazilian Awards


by Best Lawyers

Best Lawyers is honored to announce the 14th edition of The Best Lawyers in Brazil™ and the first edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in Brazil™.

Image of Brazil city and water from sky

Announcing The Best Lawyers in South Africa™ 2024


by Best Lawyers

Best Lawyers is excited to announce the landmark 15th edition of The Best Lawyers in South Africa™ for 2024, including the exclusive "Law Firm of the Year" awards.

Sky view of South Africa town and waterways

The Best Lawyers in Mexico Celebrates a Milestone Year


by Best Lawyers

Best Lawyers is excited to announce the 15th edition of The Best Lawyers in Mexico™ and the second edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in Mexico™ for 2024.

Sky view of Mexico city scape

How Palworld Is Testing the Limits of Nintendo’s Legal Power


by Gregory Sirico

Many are calling the new game Palworld “Pokémon GO with guns,” noting the games striking similarities. Experts speculate how Nintendo could take legal action.

Animated figures with guns stand on top of creatures

The Best Lawyers in Portugal™ 2024


by Best Lawyers

The 2024 awards for Portugal include the 14th edition of The Best Lawyers in Portugal™ and 2nd edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in Portugal™.

City and beach with green water and blue sky

The Best Lawyers in Peru™ 2024


by Best Lawyers

Best Lawyers is excited to announce the landmark 10th edition of The Best Lawyers in Peru, the prestigious award recognizing the country's lop legal talent.

Landscape of Peru city with cliffside and ocean

How To Find A Pro Bono Lawyer


by Best Lawyers

Best Lawyers dives into the vital role pro bono lawyers play in ensuring access to justice for all and the transformative impact they have on communities.

Hands joined around a table with phone, paper, pen and glasses

Presenting the 2024 Best Lawyers Family Law Legal Guide


by Best Lawyers

The 2024 Best Lawyers Family Law Legal Guide is now live and includes recognitions for all Best Lawyers family law awards. Read below and explore the legal guide.

Man entering home and hugging two children in doorway

The Best Lawyers in Colombia™ 2024


by Best Lawyers

Best Lawyers is honored to announce the 14th edition of The Best Lawyers in Colombia™ for 2024, which honors Colombia's most esteemed lawyers and law firms.

Cityscape of Colombia with blue cloudy sky above

Announcing the 2024 Best Lawyers in Puerto Rico™


by Best Lawyers

Best Lawyers is proud to announce the 11th edition of The Best Lawyers in Puerto Rico™, honoring the top lawyers and firms across the country for 2024.

View of Puerto Rico city from the ocean

Announcing The Best Lawyers in New Zealand™ 2025 Awards


by Best Lawyers

Best Lawyers is announcing the 16th edition of The Best Lawyers in New Zealand for 2025, including individual Best Lawyers and "Lawyer of the Year" awards.

New Zealand flag over image of country outline

Announcing The Best Lawyers in Japan™ 2025


by Best Lawyers

For a milestone 15th edition, Best Lawyers is proud to announce The Best Lawyers in Japan.

Japan flag over outline of country

Canada Makes First Foray Into AI Regulation


by Sara Collin

As Artificial Intelligence continues to rise in use and popularity, many countries are working to ensure proper regulation. Canada has just made its first foray into AI regulation.

People standing in front of large, green pixelated image of buildings