PubMed · 11000196
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
D Balsam. 2000. Malpractice: avoiding alliteration.. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.175.4.1751191b
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Radiologists and pathologists are increasingly subjected to litigation for alleged faults in diagnosing cancer. An important cause of this appears to be the introduction of mass screening for cancer. According to liability law, the judge must assess whether the person making the diagnosis effected his/her duty with due care. The distinction between error and incompetence cannot be judged solely on the basis of the individual case, but requires an estimation of the accuracy of the diagnosis on a population level. The traditional role of the expert witness, who is asked to judge the individual cases, needs to be reconsidered. A re-examination of slides or radiograms with prior knowledge of the outcome obtained does no justice to the original situation and an alternative procedure is therefore needed. Since the government initiates and controls population screening and the professional organisations involved in screening have committed themselves to monitoring the process and the results obtained, the general public must be better informed about the limitations of screening. Unrealistic expectations as to the benefits of screening appear to be an important motive for legal actions. It is questionable whether screening quality can be enhanced by means of the preventive effect of professional liability. Doctors and lawyers should analyse and solve this problem together.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.