Foo Fio Na Case Summary

The court’s decision in Foo Fio Na has attracted in some enthusiasm from people in general and the medicinal group specifically. Some have recommended that this will prompt guarded pharmaceutical as an aftereffect of specialists being careful about the results of treating patients. Others expect that the professional indemnity insurance for doctors will be expanded definitely to pad the impacts of this choice which is seen by numerous specialists as taking without end their "long standing" safety from risk. The level headed discussion in respect to whether the proportion in the Federal Court choice of Foo Fio Na was proposed or intended to be limited to cases that are related to negligent advice by medical professionals only and not to all parts of medical negligence. Foo Fio Na has not been returned to or re-examined in any Federal Court choice on medical negligence since December 2006.
Because of the apparent instability the medical profession and defence council has to face numerous challenges. To determine the vulnerability, a review of the law on medical negligence should be
In determining whether a doctor has breached the duty of care owed to his patient, a judge will not find him negligent as long as there is a respectable body of medical opinion, logically held, that supports his actions. Beyond this time-honoured test of liability, neither this court nor any other should have any business vindicating or vilifying the acts of medical practitioners. It would be pure humbug for a judge, in the ratified atmosphere of the courtroom and with the benefit of hindsight, to substitute his opinion for that of the doctor in the consultation room or operating chamber. We often enough tell doctors not to play god; it seems only fair that, similarly, judges and lawyers should not play at being