Introduction to the Socratic approach in legal frameworks

This article which I co-wrote with Professor Gus Baker and Sam Irving is now available – Open Access, Journal of Patient Safety and Risk Management, volume 25 issue 2.

The article identifies two related themes:  first a failure to modernise and secondly the application of 19th century solutions to 21st century problems. 

By “modernising” I believe that this involves looking at a specific issue in its contemporaneous context as opposed to relying upon traditional approaches which reflect a different society or a different approach.  The response to medical accidents is in various forms.  It might be said that there is an element of archaeology of ideas.  The existence of an individual right to sue the NHS reflects a society in which individuals did not have access to the welfare state and free healthcare.  The duty of candour resulted from campaigning by families of victims in the face of obvious medical mismanagement. 

In the article we advocate what is described as a holistic approach, that is identifying all the issues which arise from a medical accident and seeking to deal with them swiftly.  The intention is not to downgrade the victim, but rather to ensure that all victims’ concerns are addressed as fully and quickly as possible.  Victims want answers.  They want reassurance it will not happen again.  They need compensation, in particular for rehabilitation which is best carried out in the immediate aftermath of the injury.  They want closure, or as near as they can get to it. 

Challenges in current medical accident responses

The essential problem with the current approach which involves a number of different actions by different bodies is that they are not in sync with each other.  This produces delay and inconsistency.  A victim can wait many years to achieve some sense of redress from the accident. 

Implications for patient safety and legal efficiency

Coincidentally, the Department of Health and Social Care has just accepted a recommendation to look at fees charged by Claimants’ firms in clinical negligence.  The stated aim is: “… to improve patients’ experience of clinical negligence claims and managing rising legal costs.”  I do not think it cynical to suggest that there may be more emphasis on the latter than the former.  However, there are clearly issues to be addressed here.  Again a piecemeal approach is taken.  There will be a report by David Lock KC. 

Perhaps the article should have been entitled “A Socratic dream”, not “A Socratic resolution”. 

I would welcome your thoughts, get in touch on info@charlesfeeny.com