my comments - although this article is about non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
instead of prostate cancer, if you were to substitute prostate cancer
instead of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, the supportive argument would be the
same.  just found it interesting.

anybody got any comments or views???

~ curtis
===========================
BMJ Clare Dyer legal correspondent

A man with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma whose tumour spread and went untreated
for nine months—after a GP had negligently diagnosed a lipoma and
failed to refer him to hospital—lost a long legal battle in the House
of Lords last week.
The Medical Defence Union, which fought the case on behalf of the
doctor, hailed the result as a "landmark victory." Had it not won, the
union said, "the case would have seen the erosion of a fundamental
principle in clinical negligence law, with serious implications for UK
clinicians." It might have led to a massive increase in compensation
claims, they warned.
In November 1994 the patient, Malcolm Gregg, consulted his GP, James
Andrew Scott, with a lump under his arm. Dr Scott diagnosed it as a
lipoma.
Mr Gregg moved house and in August 1995 saw a new GP, who referred him
to hospital. At his hospital appointment in November 1995 he was sent
for an urgent biopsy, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was diagnosed.
He was still awaiting treatment when he was admitted to hospital as an
emergency case in January 1996 with acute chest pains, and it was
discovered that the tumour had spread to his left pectoral region.
To succeed in a claim of clinical negligence the claimant has to prove
that the doctor's breach of duty caused the harm suffered.
Expert statistical evidence indicated that Mr Gregg, who had the ALK
negative type of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, probably had a less than 50%
chance of 10 year survival when he saw Dr Scott. So, although the
negligence may have made his long term survival less likely, it had not
caused the harm he suffered.
Mr Gregg's lawyers argued that he was entitled to compensation because
he had suffered the "loss of a chance of recovery" as a result of the
delay.
But the law lords ruled by a majority of three to two that the ordinary
principle of causation should apply and rejected the claim. The five
judges took an unusually long time, eight months, to deliver their
judgment in this particularly difficult case.
Lord Nicholls, who with Lord Hope would have allowed Mr Gregg's claim to
succeed, said it would be "irrational and indefensible" to hold that a
patient who lost a 55% prospect of recovery could recover damages while
one who lost a 45% prospect was entitled to nothing.
But Lord Hoffmann said "a wholesale adoption of possible rather than
probable causation as the criterion of liability would be so radical a
change in our law as to amount to a legislative act." He added: "It
would have enormous consequences for insurance companies and the
National Health Service." He agreed with Lord Phillips and Baroness Hale
that "any such change should be left to parliament."
Lord Phillips pointed out that Mr Gregg was still alive nine years after
the tumour was found to have spread.
Dr Christine Tomkins, head of professional services at the Medical
Defence Union, said: "If we had lost the case, it could have led to the
number of compensation claims increasing dramatically, which would have
had serious implications for our members and the NHS. This judgment has
upheld the status quo, and that is positive news for all UK doctors."  

knowledge is power - growing old is mandatory - growing wise is optional    
"Many more men die with prostate cancer than of it. Growing old is
invariably fatal. Prostate cancer is only sometimes so."
http://community.webtv.net/PALMER_ENT/doc