While errors in medical diagnosis are common and often litigated, the different dimensions of diagnosis-formation, communication, recording-have received much less legal attention. When the process of diagnosis is differentiated in this way, new and contentious legal questions emerge that challenge the appropriateness of the Bolam/Bolitho standard. To explore these challenges, we interviewed 31 solicitors and barristers and asked them: (i) whether Montgomery should apply to information about alternative diagnoses; and (ii) whether the Bolam/Bolitho standard should be rejected in 'pure diagnosis' cases. Our qualitative analysis of the interviews sheds light not only on the two questions posed, but also on three cross-cutting themes. First, Bolam/Bolitho is criticised on two grounds that are often conflated: its paternalism for patients and its deference to medical professionals. Second, adopting different standards for different aspects of treatment and diagnosis may be justified in principle, but it can sometimes be difficult or not make sense in practice. Third, new conceptions of patients, doctors, and courts are being articulated in terms of rights or responsibilities over risks. In mapping these issues at the frontiers of medical negligence, this empirical study identifies potential pressure points for future legal developments.

中文翻译：

---

医疗过失和诊断的前沿：基于访谈的分析。

虽然医疗诊断中的错误很常见并且经常引起诉讼，但诊断的不同方面——形成、沟通、记录——受到的法律关注却少得多。当诊断过程以这种方式区分时，就会出现新的、有争议的法律问题，对 Bolam/Bolitho 标准的适当性提出挑战。为了探讨这些挑战，我们采访了 31 名律师和大律师，并向他们询问：(i) 蒙哥马利是否应该适用于有关替代诊断的信息；(ii) 在“纯诊断”案例中是否应拒绝 Bolam/Bolitho 标准。我们对访谈的定性分析不仅揭示了提出的两个问题，而且还揭示了三个交叉主题。首先，Bolam/Bolitho 因两个经常被混为一谈的理由而受到批评：对患者的家长作风和对医疗专业人员的尊重。其次，对治疗和诊断的不同方面采用不同的标准原则上可能是合理的，但在实践中有时可能很困难或没有意义。第三，患者、医生和法院的新概念正在从风险的权利或责任的角度阐明。在绘制医疗过失前沿的这些问题时，这项实证研究确定了未来法律发展的潜在压力点。