There has been extensive recent coverage in the press about the “soaring NHS negligence bill”, with a recent report suggesting that the monies spent could pay for the training of 6500 doctors.

What this statement happily forgets is that the money in question was money paid to victims of clinical negligence, where the NHS or other organisations accepted that compensation had to be paid as they had been found negligent by the Court or had accepted that they had no realistic prospect of defending the allegations.

It is not money that was handed out to anyone who just happened to ask nicely, despite certain media coverage to the contrary…

Back on Planet Reality, winning a clinical negligence claim is not as easy as certain sections of the media might like to think. A claimant has to show that a medical professional fell below the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent practitioner, and also, that as a result, they suffered harm that would otherwise have been avoided.

Let’s think about that.

In the vast majority of cases, it requires evidence from highly experienced, qualified doctors, who are willing to say publicly that their medical peers got it wrong. This is not something that is said lightly, and nor should it be. To receive compensation, you have to show that the care provided was not even of a reasonable standard. Not that it wasn’t the Rolls-Royce, gold-plated personalised care that might theoretically be enjoyed by celebrities or oligarchs with a private hospital and fleet of staff on tap.

What you have to show is the treatment wasn’t even “reasonably competent.”

And if it wasn’t good enough, and it caused you to suffer harm as a result, then, and only then are you entitled to receive compensation.

It is very hard to see, in such circumstances, why the injured person should not be compensated for their losses, regardless of how many doctors, buildings or pieces of equipment the money could otherwise have been used for.

Why should they have to lose their job, require ongoing care and support from their family without receiving recompense for something that was no fault of their own – and was proved to be the fault of someone else?

If the NHS as an organisation is serious about reducing the amounts paid to victims of medical negligence, then they need to be serious about avoiding the negligence in the first place.

And it needs to be considered at an organisational level, as whilst some cases of negligence are the result of errors made by individuals, others are the result of systemic problems, such as under staffing, poor organisation or a failure to learn from past problems.

If that virtuous circle can be created, then everyone will be happy, and we can have 6500 more doctors, 394 hospitals or whatever else is considered to be a sensible use of funds, safe in the knowledge that they will not have been paid for at the expense of those injured through no fault of their own.