THE statute of limitations for obstetricians - a 24-year period - is purposely prolonged, putting them at risk long after their practice has been dormant ("Issues to consider in medical indemnity" by Dr Wong Mun Tat; Wednesday).
This follows the "discovery rule", in which delivered babies may not know that they have been harmed within the normal statutory time limits that may apply to other medical fields.
It is particularly stringent, but is part of the rewards and risks of the obstetrics business.
While the practice of medicine constantly reinvents itself, the rules of medicine do not evolve as fast. Our innards are the same as they were in our forebears millennia ago.
New-fangled diagnostic equipment and fanciful therapeutics notwithstanding, doctors know, and patients always feel, that an ounce of human understanding and compassion in the doctor's office is worth far more than a pound of advanced medical science. This is not a Luddite's view, but a simple concession to the human psyche.
Dr Wong need not worry that current practices will be deemed inappropriate and many doctors faulted for mismanagement years down the road when a suit is brought to bear.
Under the oft-quoted Bolam test, a doctor is not guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with a practice accepted for that time as proper and appropriate by a responsible body of practitioners skilled in that particular art.
In the Bolitho test, a doctor can defend a case on the basis that his actions - based on the practice of its day - were reasonable and logical.
Medical practitioners are well aware that in their trade, anything that can go wrong, will.
What can we do but practise good, safe, middle-of-the-road medicine, even as we keep track of advances in the profession?
Yik Keng Yeong (Dr)
