the jury that “[a] mere error in judgment, made in the proper exercise of judgment, is not professional negligence” was a correct statement of the law. We agree that when various methods of treatment for a particular medical condition exist, all of which meet the standard of reasonable professional practice, then choosing the best method is a matter of professional judgment. Cf. Morrill, 128 N.H. at 779-80. In explaining the law, the trial court should avoid instructions that are reasonably capable of confusing or misleading the jury. See Stanley v. Walsh, 128 N.H. 692, 694 (1986). Although the “mere error of judgment” instruction may be a correct statement of the law, a growing number of courts have criticized similar instructions in recent years. See Rogers, 772 P.2d at 931 (<HOLDING>); DiFranco v. Klein, 657 A.2d 145, 148-49 (R.I.
holding that it is error to conduct most of the jury selection process in the absence of the defendant holding word error when used with exercise of judgment suggests substandard conduct permissible holding that religious exercise is any exercise of religion whether or not compelled by or central to a system of religious belief and that the use building or conversion of real property for the purpose of religious exercise shall be considered  religious exercise holding that trustees have a duty to exercise the same judgment and prudence that a careful owner would exercise in the sale of his own property holding that uncharged conduct may be considered at sentencing when that conduct is proven by a preponderance of the evidence