One hotly debated concept driven by several perspectives has been the role of tort in medical malpractice claims. If in both cases the doctor violates his duty of care and the patient is in worse conditions; What is the difference between 45% and 55% to hinder the recovery of something that the patient considered important and valuable? Is it justified to declare that one person has a remedy and another does not simply based on their recovery percentage points when medical uncertainty is a factor? Here we seek the answer to the question whether there should be compensation for loss of opportunity in medical negligence cases. Gregg is a great example where perspectives clashed regarding the loss of possibilities. The 3:2 majority saw no legal recognition of the loss of chance, but the rulings raised concerns about the legitimacy of the balance of probabilities. Lord Nicholls highlights the arbitrary nature of the 50% barrier which limits the eligibility of claimants who have suffered as a result of medical negligence, favoring patients being "entitled to a remedy as much as their prospects of recovery were less than 50-50". how much where they have exceeded 50-50”. A moral consideration, but arguments of political considerations block concepts such as this. Growing concern about the immunity of professions has seen developments in the law, however the loss of opportunity has yet to be clarified different nature of medicine and the hypothetical aspect of the evidence relied on mean that no formula will ever be adequate to determine the duty owed and the extent of responsibility. All this depends on the individual characteristics of the case and what consequences may be caused by the judgments. Political concerns limit the responsibility of these professions to protect the general interest and prevent...... middle of paper ......ilo v City and Hackney Health Authority [1998] AC 232Caparo v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605Chester v Afshar [2005] 1 AC 134Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2003] 1 AC 32Gregg v Scott [2005] UKHL 2, [2005] 4 All ER 812Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] AC 750Kitchen v Royal Air Force Association [1958] 1 WLR 563Mulcany v Ministry of Defense [1996] QB 732Majrowski v Guy's and St. Thomas's NHS Trust [2007] 1 AC 224Osman v United Kingdom [ 2000] 29 EHRR 245Philip v Ryan [2004] 1 IESC 105Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205, [1994] 3 All ER 848Sidaway v Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital [1985] 1 AC 871Sienkenweiz v Greif (UK) Ltd [2011] 2 AC 229Spring v Guardian Assurance [1995] 2 AC 296 Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] AC 1075StatueNational Health Service Act 2006