Plaintiff aims in medical negligence disputes: limitations of an adversarial system

Abstract

Abstract The adversarial nature of medical negligence litigation is subject to frequent criticism by the media, patient advocates, and scholars. In Ireland, reform of the medical negligence dynamic is often mooted, particularly in response to the high financial costs of this type of litigation; however, change in this area has been slow. Recently, the Irish courts have dealt with a number of high-profile, medical negligence disputes, including claims for those affected by the CervicalCheck controversy, which involved the failure to disclose the results of a retrospective audit to women who had developed cervical cancer. These cases have again highlighted the shortcomings of an adversarial system. This article explores the limitations of the tort system in the context of plaintiff aims in medical negligence disputes, drawing on empirical findings (qualitative interviews with patient support groups and barristers), and the literature. In doing so, the article argues that while financial compensation is necessary and appropriate in cases of medical negligence, the current system fails to recognise the often emotional nature of these claims, and the wider needs and aims of litigants involved in these disputes.