Also known as: respectable minority doctrine · respectable minority rule · minority rule
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A defense to medical malpractice liability that shields a physician who follows a treatment approach endorsed by a reasonable and prudent minority of the medical profession. The defense recognizes that legitimate disagreement exists within medical specialties about optimal methods. A physician satisfies the standard of care by selecting a mode of treatment that a respectable minority of practitioners would also choose under the same circumstances.
Dr. Ricardo Rojas performed spinal fusion using an older technique that a small but respected group of orthopedic surgeons still preferred. The patient suffered nerve damage and sued, claiming the newer method was standard. Because the older technique remained accepted by a respectable minority of specialists, Dr. Rojas avoided liability.
Dr. Rosalind Reed treated a cancer patient with a lower-dose chemotherapy protocol favored by a minority of oncologists who prioritized quality of life. When the tumor progressed, the family alleged negligence. The respectable-minority defense protected Dr. Reed because the chosen regimen was one a reasonable and prudent minority of physicians would have selected.
The physician must demonstrate that the chosen treatment is one a reasonable and prudent member of the medical profession would undertake under the same circumstances. The defense applies when the approach is endorsed by a respectable minority within the relevant specialty.
No. The defense exists precisely because courts recognize that medical specialties contain legitimate disagreement. A physician need only show that the chosen method would be selected by a reasonable and prudent minority of practitioners.
The two labels describe the same defense. Both protect a physician who selects a treatment endorsed by a reasonable and prudent minority of the profession when multiple acceptable approaches exist.