普通法-案例分析筆記-文庫吧
2025-07-07 10:04 本頁面
【正文】 y Sidaway v. Bethlem Royal Hospital Governors (1985 HLs)Facts:Claimant suffered persistent pain in her neck, right shoulder, and arms.Claimant consented to the neurosurgeon’s remended treatment of cervical cord depression. Doctor did tell her even if the operation properly performed, risk of disturbing a nerve root/consequences. But doctor not explain the fact that in less than 1% of the cases, the depression treatment caused spinal cord damage, paraplegia. Doctor also not informed the plaintiff that this was an operation of choice or elective operation“ (she didn’t need to have it)Plaintiff patient developed paraplegia after the spinal operationCasebook:Mrs Siddeway suffered persisitent pain in her right arm and shoulder and a surgeon employed by the defendants remended an operation to her spine to which Mrs sidawat consented. The operation involved a risk,put at least 1%, of damage to the spine and Mrs Sidawat was not informed of the risk ,The operation was properly conducted but unfortunately the risk materialized and the clainmanr became severely sue the defendants on the groud that surgeon had failed to inform her of riskHeld:dismissing the appeal ,that the defendant were not liable.Rule and notable points of law:Unlike US law, in English law consent not vitiated by the failure of the doctor to give the patient sufficient information before the consent is givenOnly if the consent is obtained by fraud or by misrepresentation it could be said that consent is not a true consent, allow battery Patient’s consent must still be real: to be real patient should be told enough about the treatment to understand what will be done to themCasebook: at the same time the doctor is not entitled to make the final decision with regard to treatment which may have disadvantages or dangers , where the patient’s heath and future are stake
環(huán)評公示相關推薦
鄂ICP備17016276號-1