Patient Information on Drug Therapy. A Problem of Medical Malpractice Law: Between Product Safety and User Safety

2007 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dieter Hart

AbstractMedicinal products are associated with risks as well as potential therapeutic benefits. This is reflected by the legal requirements for patient information on drug therapy which can be differentiated into general product information, regulated by pharmaceutical (i. e. product safety) law, and individual patient information on the treatment with the product, which is subject to medical malpractice law. The physician's duty to inform the patient comprises therapeutic information as well as information required for informed consent. Therapeutic information intends to empower the patient to comply with the requirements of treatment and to protect him/her against preventable danger and risk; it is part of the medical treatment, aimed at the individual patient and his/her personal situation. Information required for informed consent enables the patient to a self-determined decision on the treatment offered; it can be divided into information on the course of treatment and risk information. Product information and treatment information complement each other; the former should be the basis of individual information on the concrete treatment, provided by the physician in a mandatory oral conversation with the patient. Product information cannot replace the physician's individual information about the treatment.

1982 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 704
Author(s):  
John G. Fleming ◽  
Dieter Giesen

1984 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 401-414 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harold Bursztajn ◽  
Robert M. Hamm ◽  
Thomas G. Gutheil ◽  
Archie Brodsky

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’.


2021 ◽  
pp. 20201368
Author(s):  
Akash Prashar ◽  
Saqib Butt ◽  
Davide Giuseppe Castiglione ◽  
Nadeem Shaida

Objectives: Obtaining informed consent is a mandatory part of modern clinical practice. The aim of this study was to identify how often complications relating to Interventional Radiology (IR) procedures were discussed with the patient prior to the procedure. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 100 patients who experienced a complication related to an IR procedure was performed. The patient’s procedure consent form was examined to identify whether the complication they experienced had been discussed as a possible risk. Other parts of the consent form relating to need for blood transfusion and the need for further procedures were also examined. Results: 39% of patients who experienced a complication did not have the complication documented as a potential risk on the consent form. 14% of patients required a blood transfusion but were not consented for this. 42% of patients required a further procedure or operation but were not warned of this. Conclusion: The model of gaining informed consent on the day of procedure is no longer valid. Better education and the use of clinics, patient information sheets and other resources is essential. Advances in knowledge: The paper highlights the inadequacies of the current model in gaining consent for IR procedures. A more comprehensive consent process making use of all available resources is essential.


1967 ◽  
Vol 55 (5) ◽  
pp. 1396 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Justin Myers

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-196
Author(s):  
Nina Cek

The article examines the procedural aspect of medical malpractice cases. It focuses on the differences in proof standards by first explaining the characteristics of the Slovenian legal system and then comparing it with German and English legal systems. The author sheds light on the EU court's approach on the question of the responsibility of the manufacturer for the product (vaccine) and suggests the direction to use a broader framework for the evaluation of evidence and presumptions. Given the disclosed problems of proving through a medical expert's help, the article emphasizes the importance of respect for human rights in civil proceedings. Particular emphasis is also placed on no-fault systems. The question is raised of how introducing such a system into the Slovenian legal system would affect the perceived problem of proving a medical error and informed consent omission.


2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 37-38
Author(s):  
Roger Kirby ◽  
Ben Challacombe ◽  
Simon Hughes ◽  
Simon Chowdhury ◽  
Prokar Dasgupta

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document