Therefore a breach of duty has also occurred and what this means is that the expressed or implied contract between this doctor and patient has been violated (Brooten 1987, p. 1). For example when Dr. Evil failed to read any of the instructions about the medication that he prescribed to the patient he violated the contract of duty between himself and the patient. This shows extreme negligence on his part and the tort law that covers this area would define this as being valid and providing burden of proof.
Due to the fact that negligence has become such a profound problem within the field of medicine in the UK in the past decade the tort laws have become very strict on the specific care of patients as well. Therefore, in today's society, it is found that the GP's duty is fundamentally suppose to provide reasonable and dignified care, skill and judgement in the basic practice of his or her profession and when negligence does appear then they are suppose to take full responsibility for the adverse outcomes placed onto the patient in their care. Dr. Evil will thereby have to answer for wrongfully not following the guidelines that were implied in the drug combination he gave to his patient.
This case is somewhat similar to Adderly v. Bremner which defined the GP in this case as being negligent in not having changed syringes to vaccinate 38 patients. What occurred instead was the GP used one main needle for every two patients which promoted the idea of liability onto this GP. This is due to the fact that some of the patients were infected with septicaemia (blood poisoning) due to this judgemental error by the attending GP. It also defines the fact that the GP did not provide the required standard of care that was expected of him by the patients. In retrospect it would seem that any reasonable GP would have in fact changed the syringes after each patient to avoid the adverse consequences which transpired. Therefore the GP only has himself to blame for the negativities that arose out of this case (Picard, 1984, p.25). Furthermore, according to the information within the case the GP did not follow the instructions that accompanied the vaccine, which provided emphases onto the fact that a sterile needle and syringe were required to be utilized for each patient. There in this case shows a perfect example of how a GP who does not follow orders illustrates un-professionalism and thereby places a hardship on innocent patients. Dr. Evil is just as guilty as this GP as he followed similar steps which lead to an adverse outcome for his patient so therefore he can face severe penal consequences according to the tort of laws (Brooten 1987, p. 1).
Case 2: Treatment of Gwyneth through Dr. Smith
This particular case finds that regardless of Dr. Smith's inexperience in caring for patients he sill should have had the required knowledge and expert skills to properly treat this patient. GP's or Emergency room doctors are ran through a battery of extremely difficult medical tests to ensure that they have acquired the necessary medical skills that they need to treat people efficiently and with high quality care. Dr. Smith apparently fell through the loop holes of the educational system and therefore this patient was left to