Patient Consent Conversation

Reference work entry

Abstract

The law recognizes two quite distinct wrongs: there is the intentional interference with bodily integrity and there is negligence, which is not about the actual touching of the patient but about expectations regarding information provided prior to medical treatment. Both situations are referred to as consent but deal with quite distinct legal issues. The question of trespass is relatively straightforward and will not be dealt with in any great detail here; the content of the pre-treatment conversation poses much more complex legal questions and will be the focus of this chapter. An appropriately informed patient is empowered to make decisions about their treatment options and the legal question of whether or not appropriate levels of information have been provided is addressed through consideration of professional standards of care. This chapter will explain the legal test for standard of care and considerations of damage and causation. It provides a clear outline of negligence law as it applies to the pre-treatment conversation.

Keywords

Material Information Civil Liability Flight Attendant Legal Question Sympathetic Ophthalmia 
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. 1.
    Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) 1 WLR 582.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Civil Liability Act 2002 (TAS).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Civil Liability Act 2003 (QLD).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Glasgow Corporation v Muir [1943] A.C. 448, 457 per Lord MacMillan.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johnson v Biggs [2000] NSWCA 338, per Santow AJA, [53].Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marshall v Curry [1933] 3 DLR 260.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mulloy v Hop Sang [1935] 1 WWR 714 (Alta CA).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Murray v McMurchy [1949] 2 DLR 442.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Personal Injuries (Liabilities and Damages) Act 2003 (NT).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rosenberg v Percival (2001) 205 CLR 434.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schloendorff v The Society of the New York Hospital (1914) 211 N.Y 125.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schultz v Bailey [2006] NSWSC 727 (Feb 2006).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wrongs Act 1958 (VIC).Google Scholar

Further Reading

  1. Richards B, de Zwart M, Ludlow K. Tort Law Principles. Pyrmont: Thomson Lawbook Co.; 2012.Google Scholar
  2. Sappideen C, Vines P, Watson P. Torts: Commentary and Materials. Casebook, 11th ed. Pyrmont: Thomson, Lawbook Co.; 2009.Google Scholar
  3. White B, McDonald F, Wilmott L, editors. Health Law in Australia. Pyrmont: Thomson, Lawbook Co.; 2010.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Law SchoolUniversity of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations