Abstract

This chapter raises the concern that the law is convention-reinforcing in that it gives overwhelming weight and priority to conventional treatment options in formulating legal rules and chills efforts to adopt and disclose emerging treatment options. It raises the issue of whether it is appropriate to apply the “two schools of thought” theory or the Bolam test, which is popular in the context of diagnosis and treatment, in the context of disclosure of treatment options. It is argued that the range of treatment options that fall within the duty to inform may be wider than the range of treatments that satisfy the threshold for the “two schools of thought” doctrine or the Bolam test. A doctor’s duty to inform should not be confined only to conventional, standard and well-established treatment options. In the context of adopting emerging treatment options, the law gives doctors some leeway in trying innovative or new therapies. Doctors have latitude in deciding whether to adopt emerging treatment options. For those who opt against adopting an emerging treatment option, information about that may still fall within the scope of the duty to disclose.

Keywords

Information Disclosure Ethylene Diamine Tetra Acetic Acide Ethylene Diamine Tetra Acetic Acide Responsible Body Innovative Treatment 
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. Brown, Douglas Rader. 1993. Panacea or Pandora’s Box: The “two schools of medical thought” doctrine after Jones v. Chidester, 610 A.2D 964 (PA. 1992). Washington University, Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law 44: 223.Google Scholar
  2. Commonwealth of Australia. 2002. Review of the law of negligence: Final report. http://revofneg.treasury.gov.au/content/review2.asp. Accessed 22 July 2008.
  3. Dailey, Joan P. 1994. The two schools of thought and informed consent doctrines in Pennsylvania: A model for integration. Dickinson Law Review 98: 713–737.Google Scholar
  4. Ford, Paul J. 2009. Vulnerable brains: Research ethics and neurosurgical patients. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 37: 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Jones, Michael A. 2003. Medical negligence. London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
  6. Kowalski, Michael. 1998. Applying the “two schools of thought” doctrine to the repressed memory controversy. Journal of Legal Medicine 19: 503–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Mason, J.K., and G.T. Laurie. 2. Law and medical ethics, 7th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Menikoff, Jerry. 2009. The vulnerability of the very sick. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 37: 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Parchomovsky, Gideon, and Alex Stein. 2008. Torts and innovation. Michigan Law Review 107: 285–315.Google Scholar
  10. Prillaman, Hunter L. 1990. A physician’s duty to inform of newly developed therapy. Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy 6: 43–58.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