Abstract

This chapter examines four elements that have the effect of narrowing a doctor’s duty to inform. They are “medical knowledge”, “the patient’s condition”, “materiality” and “causation”. First, the existence and availability of treatment options is subject to medical knowledge and medical judgment. Second, in a real-life scenario, the menu of treatment options is subject to consideration of a particular patient’s conditions and stage of illness. Third, a doctor only needs to disclose information about alternatives to which a reasonable person in the patient’s position would have attached importance or significance. Fourth, if the duty to inform about alternatives is explored in the tort context, the issue of “causation” always forms a formidable barrier to success. Conversely, this chapter also examines the circumstances which create the potential for broadening a doctor’s duty to inform about alternatives. These three circumstances are where procedures have an “elective” or “experimental” nature, or where the patient delivers an inquiry.

Keywords

Information Disclosure Ethylene Diamine Tetra Acetic Acide Ethylene Diamine Tetra Acetic Acide Expert Testimony Materiality Test 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Addison, Thomas. 2003. Negligent failure to inform: Developments in the law since Rogers v. Whitaker. Torts Law Journal 11: 165–195.Google Scholar
  2. Chalmers, Don, and Robert Schwartz. 1993. Rogers v. Whitaker and informed consent in Australia: A fair dinkum duty of disclosure. Medical Law Review 1: 139–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Downie, Jocelyn, Timothy Caulfield, and Colleen Flood. 2002. Canadian health law and policy, 2nd ed. Ontario: LexisNexis Butterworths.Google Scholar
  4. Heywood, Rob, Ann Macaskill, and Kevin Williams. 2010. Informed consent in hospital practice: Health professionals’ perspectives and legal reflections. Medical Law Review 18: 152–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Jones, Michael A. 2003. Medical negligence. London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
  6. King Jr., Joseph H. 1999. Reconciling the exercise of judgment and the objective standard of care in medical malpractice. Oklahoma Law Review 52: 49–84.Google Scholar
  7. Krause, Joan H. 1999. Reconceptualizing informed consent in an era of health care cost containment. Iowa Law Review 85: 261–386.Google Scholar
  8. Montgomery, Jonathan. 2003. Health care law, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Parchomovsky, Gideon, and Alex Stein. 2008. Torts and innovation. Michigan Law Review 107: 285–315.Google Scholar
  10. Pattinson, Shaun D. 2006. Medical law and ethics. London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
  11. Robertson, Gerald. 1981. Informed consent to medical treatment. The Law Quarterly Review 97: 102–126.Google Scholar
  12. Scott, Kelly. 2009. Under the knife: An analysis of the medical council of New Zealand’s statement on cosmetic procedures. JLM 16: 625–652.Google Scholar
  13. Skene, Loane. 2008. Law and medical practice: Rights, duties, claims and defences, 3rd ed. Chatswood: LexisNexis Butterworths.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiju Zhao
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Law College of Social Science and HumanitiesShandong University of Traditional Chinese MedicineJinanP.R. China

Personalised recommendations