From Law wiki, the wiki for law research

[1998] AC 232 (HL). A child died when the doctor on duty could not be called owing to a flat battery in her pager. The doctor claimed that, had she been called, she would not have intubated the child, who would have died anyway. Other experts claimed that intubation would have saved the child. So the issue for consideration was whether the doctor would have been negligent. In deciding whether a professional person has discharged the duty of care incumbent on himself or herself, the standard test has generally been that set out in Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957): would a 'responsible body' of practitioners have acted the same way. The presence of dissenting voices among the profession does not, in itself, show that the duty of care was not discharged.

In Bolitho the issue came down to a simple question: is a court entitled to find that the presence of a body of opinion supporting the defendant was not sufficient to establish that the defendant had discharged his duty of care? The answer was uniquivocably 'yes': the question whether a professional person had done all that could reasonably be expected of him was a legal one, not a professional one.

However, it was pointed out that judges should be very reluctant to overturn the views of experts in particular fields, and the occasions for doing so would be very limited.