What is a doctor’s professional obligation to treat a patient in a hospital?

A doctor must exercise a reasonable degree of learning and skill, similar to those possessed by physicians in similar places and circumstances. An error in judgment is not considered negligence; a physician’s professional obligation has been satisfied where judgment has been exercised honestly and intelligently: Wilson v. Swanson, 1956 CanLII 1 (SCC), [1956] S.C.R. 804.

When a doctor acts in accordance with a recognized and respectable practice of the profession, that doctor will not be deemed negligent. It is assumed by the courts that the medical profession has adopted procedures which reflect the best interests of patients; therefore, liability only follows where there has been a violation of universally accepted rules of medicine. Even where there are competing theories and multiple available methods of treatment, a physician will not be held liable if the diagnosis and treatment they give to a patient corresponds to those recognized by medical science at the time: ter Neuzen v. Korn (1995), 1995 CanLII 72 (SCC), 127 D.L.R. (4th) 577, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 674.

The general principles laid down in ter Neuzen v. Korn, with regard to the standard of care of physicians, also apply to nurses. The nurses’ duty of care differs from that of the physicians in that they are not required to second guess the physicians, absent a clear and obvious basis for concern on the nurse’s part.