Medical negligence and informed consent: an overview

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 97-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Dawson-Bowling
Legal Studies ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Jonathan Brown

Abstract Professors MacQueen and Thomson have defined ‘contract’, within Scots law, as denoting ‘an agreement between two or more parties having the capacity to make it, in the form demanded by law, to perform, on one side or both, acts which are not trifling, indeterminate, impossible or illegal’. This definition reflects the fact that Scottish contracts are underpinned by consent, rather than by ‘consideration’. This, naturally, has the potential to be of great significance within the context of physician/patient relationships, particularly since the 2006 case of Dow v Tayside University Hospitals NHS Trust acknowledged that these relationships could be contractual in nature. This observation is of renewed importance since the landmark decision in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board, which found that physicians must ensure that they obtain full and freely given ‘informed consent’ from their patients, prior to providing medical services. In light of the present medical regime which requires ‘doctor and patient [to] reach agreement on what should happen’, the basis of liability for medical negligence, in Scotland, requires reanalysis: ‘To have a contract only when the patient pays is not consistent with a legal system which has no doctrine of consideration in contract’.


2019 ◽  
Vol 87 (4) ◽  
pp. 185-187
Author(s):  
Mabel Ijeoma Ezeuko

Informed consent is a process of communication between a clinician and a patient, which results in the patient's agreement to undergo a medical procedure. Rule 19 Part A: Code of Medical Ethics of Nigeria and Section 23 of the National Health Act 2004 prescribe the process of obtaining consent before a medical intervention. The equitable law of torts and/or criminal liabilities that deal with medical negligence should be invoked more often by patients whose right to informed consent is denied by medical practitioners.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 38
Author(s):  
Nancy E. Epstein

Background: Why do patients sue following spine surgery? Here we reviewed some of the most frequent reasons for medical negligence suits against surgeons, adjunctive medical personnel, and or institutions/hospitals. Methods: Summarizing the multiple reasons for suits against spine surgeons, their colleagues/consultants, and hospitals should help surgeons identify the problems leading to suits, and improve patient care. Results: Several of the most common reasons for medical negligence suits include: lack of informed consent, ghost surgery, failure to diagnose and treat (e.g. including preoperative, perioperative, and post-surgical complications), performing unnecessarily risky, excessive and/or unnecessary surgery; failure to provide adequate postoperative care; absent or inadequate intraoperative neural physiological monitoring; and spoliation (e.g. fraudulent surgical, office, and/or hospital notes/records). Conclusions: There are many reasons why patients sue their spine surgeons. Being aware of the factors that lead to suits, spine surgeons should learn to provide better preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative care, and, thus, limit perioperative morbidity and mortality.


2011 ◽  
Vol 195 (6) ◽  
pp. 340-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J Gogos ◽  
Richard B Clark ◽  
Marie M Bismark ◽  
Russell L Gruen ◽  
David M Studdert

2017 ◽  
Vol 475 (11) ◽  
pp. 2643-2646
Author(s):  
Wendy Z. W. Teo ◽  
Lawrence H. Brenner ◽  
B. Sonny Bal

Author(s):  
Hartini Saripan ◽  
Nurus Sakinatul Fikriah Mohd Shith Putera ◽  
Rafizah Abu Hassan ◽  
Sarah Munirah Abdullah

2001 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 6-8
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, explains that independent medical evaluations (IMEs) are not the same as impairment evaluations, and the evaluation must be designed to provide the data to answer the questions asked by the requesting client. This article continues discussions from the September/October issue of The Guides Newsletter and examines what occurs after the examinee arrives in the physician's office. First are orientation and obtaining informed consent, and the examinee must understand that there is no patient–physician relationship and the physician will not provide treatment bur rather will send a report to the client who requested the IME. Many physicians ask the examinee to complete a questionnaire and a series of pain inventories before the interview. Typical elements of a complete history are shown in a table. An equally detailed physical examination follows a meticulous history, and standardized forms for reporting these findings are useful. Pain and functional status inventories may supplement the evaluation, and the examining physician examines radiographic and diagnostic studies. The physician informs the interviewee when the evaluation is complete and, without discussing the findings, asks the examinee to complete a satisfaction survey and reviews the latter to identify and rectify any issues before the examinee leaves. A future article will discuss high-quality IME reports.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document