Talk:Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essayish

While it's good (really good - I think User:David91 is to thank for this) to have the case summaries below, the foregoing discussion is I think not well enough rooted in actual legal material. It's unreferenced. I think it should be deleted, or reorganised. Maybe it's more appropriate to the professional negligence page? I've changed the page's name to the Bolam case itself and put in the relevant facts and extract from the judgment. Wik idea 11:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why Australian Law?

I do not understand why Australian law is being cited here in a thread which is about the law of England and Wales. By all means have a separate section dealing with how Bolam has been cited in other legal systems but at the moment the latter two cases cited have nothing to do with English law! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2002:2F8:A2BE:1BD:FF9B:C180:7F6C (talk) 10:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References needed

There is no question that this is a landmark case. There are numerous scholarly reliable secondary sources that say so, and analyze the case and its progeny at length. The problem is that none of those sources are cited as references, and the article appears to be entirely original research on the part of the various editors who have contributed to it. Simply summarizing cases based solely on the decision itself, without reference to secondary sources is original research. The reported decision of a court is a primary source and cannot be the sole basis for the article. The article needs to be rewritten with the text based instead on reliable secondary sources, which happily are readily available. Banks Irk (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]