Trying New Methods Is Not Reckless; It Is Essential

We are living in an increasingly litigious age. The number of lawsuits brought against the British National Health Service has doubled in the last four years. The fear of litigation and the real possibility of been found guilty of medical malpractice are inhibiting hospitals and doctors from trying promising new ideas in the treatment of deadly illnesses.

Lord Saatchi has introduced into Parliament a Medical Innovation Bill which aims to encourage responsible scientific experimentation in medicine. As he points out, currently the law prevents the process of scientific discovery. Thousands of people die each year from cancers but each sufferer must be given the standard treatment even when it is well known that the standard treatment is largely ineffective. Any doctor who deviates from the standard code of practice is likely to suffer a verdict of medical negligence because the present law defines medical negligence as deviation from the standard procedure. But innovation always involves deviation from the norm. By prohibiting deviation, the law is prohibiting innovation with the long term result that cures for cancers are delayed. Doctors know that the current methods lead to little benefit yet they cannot try new approaches for fear of litigation.

By prohibiting deviation, the law is prohibiting innovation with the long term result that cures for cancers are delayed.

The legal judgment in Crawford vs Board of Governors of Charing Cross Hospital (1953) states ‘the practitioner who treads the well-worn path will usually be safer, as far as legal liability, than the one who adopts a newly discovered method of treatment.’ As Saatchi puts it, ‘Doctors deciding how to treat a particular case start with the knowledge that as soon as they move away from existing standards within the profession, there is an automatic and serious risk that they will be found guilty of negligence if the treatment is less successful than hoped.’

Lord Saatchi’s proposed Bill will differentiate in law between reckless experimentation and responsible scientific innovation. Any proposed innovative approach has to gain prior approval from the hospital’s multi-disciplinary team. It will free doctors to make informed decisions that deviate from standard practice and therefore it should significantly increase the chances of finding a cure for cancer.

In medicine, as in business, applying standard practice means applying yesterday’s solutions. Innovation means trying to find tomorrow’s solutions. It involves risk and failure but if we stick rigidly to the current methods we will never reach the innovations we need.

By Paul Sloane

About the Author

Paul Sloane is a speaker and author on lateral thinking and innovation. He helps organisations improve innovation. He worked for IBM, Ashton-Tate and MathSoft. His books include The Leader’s Guide to Lateral Thinking Skills and The Innovative Leader.

Photo: Medicine doctor hand working with modern from shutterstock.com

  • Stephen Sweid

    Paul, it is imperative to try novel approaches, but it is also imperative to test the viability of the idea thoroughly prior to broader application. This is especially true in health related industries. There is here some balance between standards and innovation. This is experimenting and testing.

    When doctors start experimenting directly on their patients, then there will be certainly more casualties than breakthroughs. I know that from dialysis of some relatives in the UK, where nurses are expected to do on the job training directly in needling. There is a rotation procedure of nurses. Result: It can work sometimes without excruciating pain! When more people are involved it is better. So maybe, when new approaches are to be used for cancer, a team of doctors should be involved rather than solo.

Ad

STAY CONNECTED

 
Ad