Rogers v Whitaker

This appeal concerned Maree Lynette Whitaker and the appellant, Dr. Rogers, before the High Court of Australia. The central dispute revolved around whether the trial judge erred in preferring one body of medical opinion over another regarding the disclosure of a particular risk in a clinical situation. The appellant argued that if there were two responsible bodies of medical opinion, the judge should not have inquired into or preferred one over the other, and that no reasonably competent practitioner could have acted as the defendant did.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the trial judge was entitled to prefer one responsible body of medical opinion to another when assessing the standard of care, and whether the *Bolam* test, as applied to medical negligence, required the court to accept any practice supported by a responsible body of medical opinion, even if conflicting opinions existed. The court was asked to consider the scope and application of the *Bolam* principle, particularly in situations where there is a divergence of expert medical views.

The court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of the *Bolam* test. It was submitted that while the court must determine if a body of opinion is "responsible," it is not its function to prefer one responsible opinion over another if multiple such opinions exist. The standard of care is not abdicated to the profession; rather, the court determines, based on the totality of the evidence, whether a particular practice reflects responsible medical opinion. This principle, it was argued, extends beyond medical expertise to any calling involving particular skill and expertise, where the "magic" lies in knowledge, experience, and learning, not solely in the term "professional."