The application of the Bolam Principle with regards to diagnose and treatment: a comparative study between Malaysia and Australia / Wan Fazila Salmi Wan Yaacob and Muhammad Nazir Mohd Nazri.

The Bolam Principle has been the principle that has been applied in both Malaysia and Australia in order to determine the standard of care of doctors and to establish whether or not duty of care has been breach. This principle has been criticized mainly because
it is said to favor doctors rather the patients. The judgment in the case of Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479 and the Naxakis v Western General Hospital & Anor (1999) 162 ALR 540 has been the turning point in Australian courts as it was decided that the Bolam Principle is not applicable in all aspect of medical negligence. In Malaysia however, based on the decision in the case of Foo Fio Na v Dr Soo Fook Mun & Anor (2007) 1 MLJ 593, the Bolam Principle is only disregarded in doctor's duty to disclose medical risks to patients. Therefore the Bolam Principle still reigns as the yardstick in determining the standard of care and to establish breach of duty by doctors in the realm of diagnosis and treatment. However, due to the criticism on the
Bolam Principle, it is best that the Bolam Principle be abandon in all realms of medical negligence. This is important as to protect patients from injuries cause by negligent act of doctors and to ensure their rights are protected.