That depends on what is meant by "defend."
From the perspective of a professional medical association such as the Indian Medical Association, there are three distinct responsibilities:
1. Defend Due Process and Fair Treatment of Doctors
Yes. This is a core responsibility.
IMA can legitimately:
Ensure that medical negligence allegations are assessed using established legal standards.
Seek independent expert medical opinions.
Oppose criminalization of bona fide medical judgment.
Provide legal assistance to members.
Challenge regulatory or judicial findings if there are substantial legal or scientific grounds.
Professional associations worldwide routinely perform this role.
2. Defend Scientific and Evidence-Based Medicine
Yes. This is also a core responsibility.
If IMA believes that:
A drug was legally approved by regulators,
The prescription was consistent with prevailing standards of care,
The evidence against the physician is scientifically weak,
then it may present scientific literature, expert testimony, and policy arguments in support of the physician.
3. Defend Every Doctor Regardless of Facts
No.
A professional body's duty is not to automatically defend every act by every member.
If evidence establishes:
Reckless prescribing,
Violation of established guidelines,
Gross negligence,
Fraudulent conduct,
then the association's primary obligation shifts toward patient safety and professional standards.
In the cough syrup case
The key questions are:
Was the formulation legally approved by drug regulators at the time?
Were there government advisories restricting its use in children?
What was the child's age?
Was the prescription consistent with accepted pediatric practice at that time?
Did expert pediatric bodies support or discourage such prescriptions?
Did the alleged harm arise from the medicine, dosage, underlying illness, or other factors?
IMA could reasonably defend the pediatrician if there are genuine questions regarding:
Standard of care,
Scientific evidence,
Causation,
Fairness of the legal process.
A balanced IMA position
An ideal position would be:
"IMA fully supports patient safety and rational prescribing. Simultaneously, IMA believes that allegations of medical negligence must be determined on the basis of expert medical evidence, accepted standards of care, and due process. The Association will extend professional and legal support to any physician whose actions were undertaken in good faith and in accordance with prevailing medical knowledge, while respecting the authority of the courts and the paramount interests of patients."
Such a position protects both:
the medical profession from unfair liability, and
patients from substandard care.
That is generally more defensible—legally, ethically, and institutionally—than either automatically condemning or automatically defending the pediatrician
Take home message :
1.The recent Supreme Court judgment underscores an important principle: children are not small adults. Prescribing decisions for young children must strictly follow scientific evidence, regulatory guidance, and the standard of care to ensure patient safety.
2.adverse outcome is a tragedy, but not every adverse outcome is negligence. Courts, regulators, and society must distinguish between wilful misconduct and bona fide medical judgment exercised in good faith. Protecting patients and protecting honest doctors are complementary—not conflicting—objectives.
3.If a medicine was legally approved, widely available, and prescribed in accordance with prevailing practice, holding an individual doctor solely liable raises important questions of fairness and due process. Accountability must extend across the entire regulatory and healthcare ecosystem, not rest exclusively on the treating physician.
Long Live IMA
Comments
Post a Comment