My Lords, often it would. If there is to be litigation, an apology tends to suggest an admission of liability. Generally speaking, people do not apologise when they do not think that anything has gone wrong. An important exception to that—one that I have come across—might be where there is an admission of liability and that something has gone wrong, but a dispute over the consequences or what damage might have been suffered. If there would have been adverse consequences to an operation in any event, the fact that it went wrong might not make a difference. However, in those cases the apology might well avoid the litigation because of the difference in attitude and spirit between the parties that results from the apology being made and the recognition that something has gone wrong.
I suggest that we should welcome this amendment. It elevates good practice, as shown by the code, to an enforceable statutory duty of candour, as the noble Baroness points out, backed up by sanctions. It may be that this precise wording is not what is required but I invite the Minister to consider the statutory duty of candour as an important help for future patients. I welcome this amendment as going some way to helping that to happen.
Health and Social Care Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 7 November 2011.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Health and Social Care Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
732 c56 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 19:42:06 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_782618
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_782618
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_782618