{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01630901287553648, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0034334763948497852, 'mean_word_length': 5.072916666666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A medico-legal review of some current UK guidelines in orthodontics: a personal view.

This article is a critical analysis from a medico-legal perspective of some current authoritative UK clinical guidelines in orthodontics. Two clinical guidelines have been produced by the Royal College of Surgeons of England and four by the British Orthodontic Society. Each guideline is published with the analysis immediately following it. Following recent UK case law (Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority, 1997) which allows the courts to choose between two bodies of responsible expert medical opinion where they feel one opinion is not 'logical', it is likely that the UK courts will increasingly turn to authoritative clinical guidelines to assist them in judging whether or not an appropriate standard of care has been achieved in medical negligence cases. It is thus important for clinicians to be aware of the recommendations of such guidelines, and if these are not followed the reasons should be discussed with the patient and recorded in the clinical case notes. This article attempts to highlight aspects of the guidelines that have medico-legal implications.