NHS negligence: Should you sue or make a complaint?
The number of medical negligence cases continues to rise, notwithstanding attempts to reduce the long-standing burden on the National Health Service (NHS). Oxford University Hospitals, providing physical, mental health, and social care at the John Radcliffe, Horton General, and Churchill hospitals and the Nuffield Orthopedic Centre, paid out more than £30 million in compensation for medical negligence claims involving children, with death, brain damage, and cerebral palsy as some of the most common injuries and conditions. Delays in diagnosis, treatment, and surgery contribute to medical negligence, and patients suffer serious harm as a result.
There is a stringent need for practical, evidence-based solutions to
If you believe the NHS has wronged you, take steps to address the situation immediately, as it can impact your overall well-being and rights. It might be a good idea to consult with a legal professional. Prior to making a medical negligence claim, consider the NHS complaints procedure. After considering all the factors involved with each option, you can determine which one best fits your needs and brings you closer to achieving your goals.
To Sue Or Not To Sue The NHS? Weigh The Pros And Cons
The aim of tort law is to deter misconduct and compensate injury victims, providing a means of giving harmless vent to feelings of tension or stress. Unfortunately, the threat of tort doesn't deter medical injuries, though it has been proven effective, especially in the case of automobile liability and suppliers of alcohol. More often than not, healthcare providers fall short of the standard of reasonable care, and considerable damage results for the patient, whether physical, emotional, or financial. If you've been let down by an NHS professional, and their conduct caused you injury or made your existing condition worse, you can file a lawsuit in court.
The potential benefits of filing a medical negligence claim are:
You can claim financial compensation
: You're eligible for economic damages, which are awarded as a form of compensation for financial expenses and losses resulting from the defendant's negligence. If you're keen to learn
You can ensure what happened to you doesn't happen to someone else
: The recovery phase can take weeks, months, or years, depending on the severity of the injuries. The decision to file a lawsuit is a big step. You can ensure others don't go through the same thing as you by holding the healthcare professional accountable. Patients have faith their doctors act responsibly, and they should be held accountable if they can't maintain the accepted standard of competence.
The potential drawbacks of filing a medical negligence claim are:
Litigation is complex and expensive
: Determining a breach of duty and establishing causation requires obtaining relevant medical records and expert testimonies. You're looking at a hypothetical question of what would have happened if there hadn't been a violation of legal responsibility. Legal battles often come with a hefty price tag, but you can fund litigation via a no-win-no-fee agreement.
The high-stress endeavor can take an emotional toll
: You can't control the outcome of the lawsuit, which can create stress, typically associated with sleep disruption, impaired concentration, fatigue, and disorganized thinking. To complicate matters, claims resolution times can be frustratingly low.
The decision to file a lawsuit comes down to the upside vs downside, so if you can recover more by filing a lawsuit, that is what you should do.
If You're Not Happy With An NHS Service, Make A Complaint
Medical staff are burned out, healthcare facilities are old and crumbling, and community health and well-being are worsening. After an incident, you should raise your concerns about it with the NHS; you can make notes about what you want to say so that you can refer back to what happened. You can submit a complaint regarding lack of information, failure to diagnose a condition, treatment or care, attitude of the staff, or poor communication. It's important to be specific about your expectations and remain realistic about your desired outcome. Do you want an explanation/apology regarding what happened to you? Or do you want an investigation to be carried out?
The potential benefits of using the
The NHS is less adversarial when dealing with complaints
: Complaints can be made on the phone, by email, or in a letter. Any rivalry between the opposing parties is effectively reduced. You can speak in person to the Complaints Manager, who will make a written record of the legal document and give you a copy.
It can lead to changes in practices to prevent similar incidents
: Once your complaint has been investigated, you'll receive a response, which sets out the findings and includes information on what's being done. If you're unhappy with the response, you can request a resolution meeting or take your complaint to the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman.
During the process of making a medical negligence claim, you have to go over what happened multiple times, which can be upsetting.
Concluding Remarks
The NHS is accountable for the medical negligence of its employees, including physicians, and must, therefore, deal with claims, supporting legal costs and damages that become payable. Delays in solving disputes cause further distress and increase costs. Even if you have a claim that the courts will recognize as a matter of law, make at least one effort to resolve the situation by negotiating a settlement or making a complaint. Weigh the pros and cons and seek legal advice to make the best decision.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mail & Guardian
4 days ago
- Mail & Guardian
Monthly prescription rule blocks ADHD treatment for South African children
Attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder affects 5% to 7% of schoolgoing children, but doctors can only prescribe treatment for a month at a time Attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) Methylphenidate, a Studies have shown that when the methylphenidate — the Methylphenidate is, however, classified as a This means patients need to visit their doctor each month for a new prescription, so in the private sector they'd need to pay for a doctor's visit each month, on top of paying for the medication, and in the public sector patients would need to take a day each month to queue up at their local clinic — and they'd have to make sure it's a day on which a doctor, as opposed to only nurses, are available at their health facility. The current scheduling creates huge administrative and financial difficulties for patients and caregivers when they try to get treated, especially for those navigating ADHD's very symptoms: executive dysfunction, forgetfulness and inattention. As a psychiatrist, working in both the public and private healthcare sector, I've seen the toll that untreated ADHD takes on children, adults and families — from fractured educational journeys to unemployment, depression, addiction and even suicide. These are not theoretical risks but daily realities for many South Africans. And yet one of the biggest obstacles that locks people out of treatment — our own healthcare policies — remains unchanged. It's time that we change that script. Our medicines regulator, the Here are four reasons why methylphenidate should be a schedule five medication. More people with ADHD will get treated ADHD is not rare — a In While we rightly invest in treating chronic conditions such as diabetes and hypertension, we continue to overlook the profound, lifelong effect of untreated ADHD. These factors contribute to the burden of disease and consequent stress on the health system — but most importantly, they reduce the quality of life of people with ADHD and their families. Medication can change this, yet access is limited. In many poorer communities Although stigma and the cost of methylphenidate ( Current scheduling does not prevent abuse Opponents of rescheduling often cite concerns about misuse — especially among tertiary students using methylphenidate for academic enhancement. Although these concerns are valid, evidence suggests that the current schedule six classification does little to prevent non-medical use. Studies show that Meanwhile, genuine patients — particularly children and teenagers — are penalised by overly restrictive policies that reduce access to the very medicine designed to help them succeed. We must ask ourselves: is the current scheduling preventing abuse, or is it merely restricting access for those who need it most? If the answer is the latter, then we have an ethical obligation to change course. Rescheduling does not mean deregulation. It means creating a more nuanced, risk-based framework — one that acknowledges both the need for control and the realities of living with a chronic disorder. More people will take their medicine correctly How well someone adheres to their medication, determines, to a large extent, how well the medicine works for them. But studies show For people with ADHD — with symptoms that impair their ability to organise, plan and follow through — the monthly schedule six script requirement can become a self-defeating cycle. The very condition we are trying to treat creates challenges in adhering to its treatment. Unsurprisingly, participants in the Moreover, research shows, people with ADHD who use their medication correctly, are also more likely to adhere to medication for other conditions, for The state is doing the same thing for antidepressants and anti-anxiety meds ADHD medication is not the only psychiatric medicine that needs rescheduling. South Africa's But the government health system — which most HIV-positive people in the country use to get their treatment — doesn't have nearly enough doctors to staff clinics full-time. Instead, nurses run such clinics, with doctors only doing shifts once or twice a week. Getting nurses to diagnose mental health conditions and to prescribe treatment, will mean that patients won't have to return for doctors' appointments to get treated. Policy is never value neutral. It reflects what we, as a society, choose to prioritise. In the case of ADHD, we must choose inclusion over exclusion, access over fear, and healing over harm. Rescheduling methylphenidate is not about giving up control; it's about restoring agency to patients, families and clinicians alike. response from chief executive Boitumelo Semete-Makokotlela : Sahpra is open to the rescheduling of scheduled substances. For this to happen, either the manufacturer of a medicine or anyone in the scientific community who has data for us to consider has to submit a request for rescheduling, along with the required scientific and clinical data. We'll have our names and scheduling committee, as well as our clinical committee, review the submissions. We would also consider additional data, outside of what would have been provided, and then make a decision. This process takes about 120 days. Professor Renata Schoeman is a Cape Town-based psychiatrist and the co-author of South Africa's and chairs the special interest group for ADHD. She serves on the ministerial advisory committee for mental health and heads up the healthcare leadership MBA specialisation stream at Stellenbosch University. This story was produced by the . Sign up for the .
Mail & Guardian
04-06-2025
- Mail & Guardian
A prescription for Gauteng's health: Generics, state pharma and the power of local
Generic medicine produced locally are the cornerstone of affordable healthcare. In the heart of Gauteng, where the pulse of South Africa's healthcare system beats loudest, a quiet revolution is overdue. It's not about high-tech hospitals or billion-rand budgets. It's about generics, local pharmaceutical manufacturing and the untapped potential of small businesses. If we're serious about equitable healthcare, we must rethink how we produce, price and provide medicine. Generics, the unsung heroes Generic medicines are chemically identical to their branded counterparts but are sold at a fraction of the price. They are the cornerstone of affordable healthcare globally. In South Africa, where the cost of living continues to rise and public hospitals face chronic shortages, generics offer a lifeline. Yet, despite their proven efficacy, generics remain underutilised and under-promoted. Why? Because the pharmaceutical market is still skewed in favour of brand-name monopolies, often protected by patent extensions and marketing muscle. Meanwhile, patients in Gauteng are forced to choose between paying for transport to clinics and buying essential medication out of pocket. The single exit price (SEP) policy, introduced to regulate medicine pricing, has helped standardise costs across the private sector. But it has also inadvertently squeezed out smaller players and discouraged innovation. While SEP has made medicines more affordable, it has not addressed the deeper structural issues that limit access — chief among them, our reliance on imported drugs and the lack of local manufacturing capacity. More than a factory Imagine a state-owned pharmaceutical company — not as a bureaucratic behemoth, but as a strategic engine for public health. Such an entity could prioritise the production of essential generics, stabilise supply chains, and reduce dependence on imports. It could also serve as a price anchor in a volatile market, ensuring that life-saving drugs remain within reach for all South Africans. India's model offers a compelling precedent. By allowing local manufacturers to produce generics even when patents exist elsewhere, India has become the world's largest supplier of affordable medicines. South Africa, with its scientific talent and industrial base, could do the same — if we had the political will. A state pharmaceutical company could also play a critical role in addressing medicine shortages, particularly for antibiotics and chronic disease treatments. These shortages are not just logistical failures — they are symptoms of a system that prioritises profit over public health. A state-led approach could ensure that essential medicines are always available, especially in underserved areas. The missing link in local pharma Gauteng is home to a vibrant ecosystem of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), many of which are eager to enter the pharmaceutical space. But they face steep barriers: regulatory red tape, lack of financing and an uneven playing field dominated by multinational giants. Supporting these SMEs isn't just good economics — it's smart health policy. Local businesses can respond faster to regional needs, create jobs and build resilient supply chains. With targeted incentives, training and procurement support, these enterprises could become the backbone of a home-grown pharmaceutical sector. Moreover, SMEs are often more agile and innovative than their larger counterparts. They are well-positioned to develop niche products, explore green manufacturing practices and collaborate with academic institutions on research and development. But without access to capital and streamlined regulatory pathways, their potential remains untapped. South Africa imports the vast majority of its active pharmaceutical ingredients, making us vulnerable to global supply chain disruptions. The Covid-19 pandemic exposed this fragility in stark terms. Delays in vaccine procurement, shortages of basic medicines and inflated prices were all consequences of our overreliance on foreign suppliers. Local production is not just about economic sovereignty — it's about health security. By investing in domestic manufacturing, we can ensure a steady supply of essential medicines, reduce costs and create high-skilled jobs. Gauteng, with its industrial infrastructure and access to research institutions, is the ideal hub for such an initiative. But local production must be accompanied by regulatory reform. The South African Health Products Regulatory Authority must streamline its approval processes and provide clear guidance for new entrants. Delays in drug registration not only stifle innovation — they cost lives. We need a three-pronged strategy: normalise generics through public education, prescriber incentives and regulatory support. Patients must be empowered to ask for generics and healthcare providers must be incentivised to prescribe them. Establish a state pharmaceutical entity focused on essential medicines and public health priorities. This entity should operate transparently, with clear mandates and measurable outcomes. Empower local businesses with access to capital, streamlined licensing and inclusion in public procurement. Government tenders should prioritise local manufacturers, especially those producing high-demand generics. Additionally, we must invest in skills development. Young South Africans should be trained in pharmaceutical sciences, regulatory affairs and supply-chain management. A thriving local industry requires not just factories, but a skilled workforce to run them. The bigger picture The pharmaceutical industry is not just about pills and patents — it's about power. Who controls the supply of medicine controls the health of a nation. For too long, that power has rested in the hands of a few multinational corporations. It's time to reclaim it. The Covid-19 pandemic taught us that health is a public good, not a private commodity. It also taught us that resilience comes from within. By embracing generics, supporting local businesses and establishing a state pharmaceutical company, we can build a healthcare system that is not only more affordable but more just. It's time to stop importing solutions and start manufacturing them. Fentse Maseko works for the pharmacy and pharmacology department at the University of Witwatersrand and is a PhD applicant.
Mail & Guardian
26-05-2025
- Mail & Guardian
NHS negligence: Should you sue or make a complaint?
The number of medical negligence cases continues to rise, notwithstanding attempts to reduce the long-standing burden on the National Health Service (NHS). Oxford University Hospitals, providing physical, mental health, and social care at the John Radcliffe, Horton General, and Churchill hospitals and the Nuffield Orthopedic Centre, paid out more than £30 million in compensation for medical negligence claims involving children, with death, brain damage, and cerebral palsy as some of the most common injuries and conditions. Delays in diagnosis, treatment, and surgery contribute to medical negligence, and patients suffer serious harm as a result. There is a stringent need for practical, evidence-based solutions to If you believe the NHS has wronged you, take steps to address the situation immediately, as it can impact your overall well-being and rights. It might be a good idea to consult with a legal professional. Prior to making a medical negligence claim, consider the NHS complaints procedure. After considering all the factors involved with each option, you can determine which one best fits your needs and brings you closer to achieving your goals. To Sue Or Not To Sue The NHS? Weigh The Pros And Cons The aim of tort law is to deter misconduct and compensate injury victims, providing a means of giving harmless vent to feelings of tension or stress. Unfortunately, the threat of tort doesn't deter medical injuries, though it has been proven effective, especially in the case of automobile liability and suppliers of alcohol. More often than not, healthcare providers fall short of the standard of reasonable care, and considerable damage results for the patient, whether physical, emotional, or financial. If you've been let down by an NHS professional, and their conduct caused you injury or made your existing condition worse, you can file a lawsuit in court. The potential benefits of filing a medical negligence claim are: You can claim financial compensation : You're eligible for economic damages, which are awarded as a form of compensation for financial expenses and losses resulting from the defendant's negligence. If you're keen to learn You can ensure what happened to you doesn't happen to someone else : The recovery phase can take weeks, months, or years, depending on the severity of the injuries. The decision to file a lawsuit is a big step. You can ensure others don't go through the same thing as you by holding the healthcare professional accountable. Patients have faith their doctors act responsibly, and they should be held accountable if they can't maintain the accepted standard of competence. The potential drawbacks of filing a medical negligence claim are: Litigation is complex and expensive : Determining a breach of duty and establishing causation requires obtaining relevant medical records and expert testimonies. You're looking at a hypothetical question of what would have happened if there hadn't been a violation of legal responsibility. Legal battles often come with a hefty price tag, but you can fund litigation via a no-win-no-fee agreement. The high-stress endeavor can take an emotional toll : You can't control the outcome of the lawsuit, which can create stress, typically associated with sleep disruption, impaired concentration, fatigue, and disorganized thinking. To complicate matters, claims resolution times can be frustratingly low. The decision to file a lawsuit comes down to the upside vs downside, so if you can recover more by filing a lawsuit, that is what you should do. If You're Not Happy With An NHS Service, Make A Complaint Medical staff are burned out, healthcare facilities are old and crumbling, and community health and well-being are worsening. After an incident, you should raise your concerns about it with the NHS; you can make notes about what you want to say so that you can refer back to what happened. You can submit a complaint regarding lack of information, failure to diagnose a condition, treatment or care, attitude of the staff, or poor communication. It's important to be specific about your expectations and remain realistic about your desired outcome. Do you want an explanation/apology regarding what happened to you? Or do you want an investigation to be carried out? The potential benefits of using the The NHS is less adversarial when dealing with complaints : Complaints can be made on the phone, by email, or in a letter. Any rivalry between the opposing parties is effectively reduced. You can speak in person to the Complaints Manager, who will make a written record of the legal document and give you a copy. It can lead to changes in practices to prevent similar incidents : Once your complaint has been investigated, you'll receive a response, which sets out the findings and includes information on what's being done. If you're unhappy with the response, you can request a resolution meeting or take your complaint to the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman. During the process of making a medical negligence claim, you have to go over what happened multiple times, which can be upsetting. Concluding Remarks The NHS is accountable for the medical negligence of its employees, including physicians, and must, therefore, deal with claims, supporting legal costs and damages that become payable. Delays in solving disputes cause further distress and increase costs. Even if you have a claim that the courts will recognize as a matter of law, make at least one effort to resolve the situation by negotiating a settlement or making a complaint. Weigh the pros and cons and seek legal advice to make the best decision.
