The given article deals with the Canadian legacy of civil actions on negligence and technical assault or battery involving an unauthorizedmedical interference to plaintiff. In modern doctrine and case-law, the given concept is named “informed consent”, upon whichthe patient is not a mere subject of medical treatment, but has a substantial set of patient rights, involving the informational ones, whichincludes his right to be informed on further invasive treatment and thus to be able to assent or decline it. The doctrine of informed consent,arising from actions on unauthorized medical treatment in both common law and civil law jurisdictions, has a centuryfold historyin the jurisprudence. In the common-law world, it was bred in the end of the 19th century primarily in the jurisprudence of Americancourts, but still has its distinct peculiarities in the common law of Canada throughout the twentieth century. The span on the researchedjurisprudence embraces the time period of 1899 (judgment of Parnell, which was the first case to deal with the subject) to 1980 (caseof Reibl v. Hughes), where the Canadian Supreme Court has firmly recognized the principle of informed consent in the acting commonlaw. In the 1990s, the principles of informed consent had been codified. The author has investigated on the evolvement of the conceptof patient’s right to autonomy in the state from the very beginning to the judgment of Reibl v. Hughes in 1980, and has researched theroots of the “right to autonomy” as an extension of the right to privacy, which has penumbrally existed in Canadian jurisprudence forover a century, despite having been recognized as such relatively recently, despite an existence of various early case-law legacy. Apartfrom the abovesaid, the author aimed to define the authorities used by Canadian courts in the earlier cases dealing with unconsentedsurgery, which involves judgments from other jurisdictions as well as professional legal and medical textbooks.
Kansas