Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 4, 2026

Precision Implementation of Minimal Erythema Dose MED Testing to Assess Individual Variation in Human Inflammatory Response
Published on: October 3, 2019
Doctors, Defamation and Damages: Medical Practitioners Fighting Back
1Barrister, Crockett Chambers, Melbourne; Professorial Fellow of Law and Psychiatry, University of Melbourne; Adjunct Professor of Forensic Medicine, Monash University.
Abstract:
In three judgments in favour of New South Wales medical practitioners between 2017 and 2019 the Supreme Court awarded ordinary and aggravated damages for harm done to professional reputations. The decisions in Al Muderis v Duncan (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 726, O'Neill v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 655 and Tavakoli v Imisides (No 4) [2019] NSWSC 7 are considered in the context of international decisions and analysis of doctors taking defamation action arising from online publications. Reflections are provided about the repercussions of the phenomenon, its commercial justification and the inhibitions that should be experienced before defamation and injurious falsehood actions are taken by medical practitioners.
Related Concept Videos
Torts III
Quasi-intentional torts in healthcare involve acts where intent is not directed to harm an individual but results in harm due to careless or reckless speech.
Torts II
Torts I
Intentional...
Ethical Standards II
Nurses are entrusted with upholding various ethical principles and standards. Nurses forge solid therapeutic relationships using trust, empathy, autonomy, confidentiality, and professional competence.
Confidentiality is crucial, embodying respect for individual privacy...
Nurses' Legal Responsibilities II
Communication between nurses and...
Nurses' Legal Responsibilities III
Cultivating a culture of collaboration and mutual respect among nurses transcends mere enhancement...

