Abstract
BACKGROUND: The concept "standard of care" (SOC) is invoked in legal cases, as well as evidence-based, and professional/ethical discussions in medicine and surgery. METHODS: We reviewed key legal cases and relevant evidence-based medical articles, and then explored the implications for professional societies seeking to set guidelines for their members testifying as expert witnesses. RESULTS: First, the legal concept of SOC plays a role in malpractice cases in assessing whether a physician's behavior was "within the SOC." The concept of SOC has evolved from a "standard of a responsible body of medical opinion" (Bolam case), which implicitly did not allow for multiple SOC, to a more evidence-based approach. Second, according to the evidence-based medical literature, there is more than one SOC in medicine and surgery, including neurosurgery. Third, professional, medical, and surgical societies have evoked the concept of SOC to set ethical guidelines for how their members should behave when testifying as expert witnesses. Specifically, the literature argues societies should avoid abusing singular, self-serving definitions of the SOC to sanction members, typically plaintiff's experts, who offer alternative SOC in depositions or in court. CONCLUSIONS: Recent legal decisions suggest that testimony should be based upon scientific evidence. The scientific evidence indicates that there is often more than one SOC. Thus, any subspecialty society, including the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, that ignores evidence-based medicine and the existence of multiple SOC, risks the appearance of fostering self-interest at the expense of patient care.