Guilty or Not Guilty; Cases of Potential Medical Negligence

Description

The session titled "Guilty or Not Guilty" is moderated by Grey Giddins, who introduces a dynamic and interactive format exploring two medico-legal cases. The session aims to engage the audience while discussing the implications of negligence in medical practices. Expert witnesses, including orthopedic surgeons and a solicitor well-versed in medical negligence, present their cases from both the claimant's and defense's perspectives.



In the first case, Giddins outlines an incident involving a 65-year-old woman who sustained a distal radius fracture. Despite initial treatment, she experiences complications leading to further surgery. The claimant's expert argues negligence lies in the delay and inadequate warnings about treatment risks, particularly the risk of anterior knee pain due to surgical intervention. The defense counters the claims by asserting that the treatment was reasonable, emphasizing the unpredictability of patient outcomes based on natural healing processes and individual health factors.



The second case shifts focus to a 32-year-old carpet fitter who suffered a tibial fracture and faced significant anterior knee pain post-surgery. The argument centers around whether the patient was adequately informed of all treatment options and their associated risks and benefits, highlighting the balance between surgical intervention and conservative management. The defense expert emphasizes that complications are acknowledged but nuances in individual patient scenarios, including the potential for good outcomes even with non-surgical treatment, cannot be neglected.



As the discussions unfold, both sides passionately defend their positions, prompting critical cross-examinations to challenge the validity of evidence presented. The session culminates in an audience vote to decide on the rulings for each case, reflecting the complexity and subjective nature of medical negligence deliberations.

Specialties