Alderson B & Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks 1856 - Alexander Capron - Robins JA & Malette v Shulman 1990 - Goff LJ & Donaldson MR & Sidaway v Governors of Bethlem Hospital 1985 - I Kennedy & A Grubb - Lord Fraser & Gillick v West Norfolk & Wisbech AHA 1986 - McNair J & Bolam & Friern Hospital Management Committee 1957 - Supreme Court of Canada & Reibl v Hughes 1980 - A Montrose - BBC Horizon - R Gillon -
82,814. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The defendants might have been liable for negligence, if, unintentionally, they omitted to do that which a reasonable person would have done, or did that which a person taking reasonable precautions would not have done. (Negligence & Medical Law) Alderson B, Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks 1856 11 Ex R781
79,003. In 1972 a journalist uncovered a research project that had been going on for 40 years among black men in rural Alabama. Several hundred men had been involved in this government-sponsored study of untreated syphilis, but it continued up until the time that it was revealed to the public, which was plainly shocked to discover that scientific curiosity had apparently won out over medical care in the treatment of the victims of this disease in the study group. (Disease & Medical Law) Professor Alexander Capron
79,004. The right of a person to control his or her body is a concept that has long been recognised at common law. (Medical Law & Consent) Robins J A, Malette v Shulman (1990) 67 DLR (4th) 321 (Ont CA)
79,005. The right of self-determination ... obviously encompasses the right to refuse medical treatment. A competent adult is generally entitled to reject a specific treatment or all treatment ... If a doctor were to proceed in the face of a decision to reject the treatment, he would be civilly liable for his unauthorized conduct notwithstanding his justifiable belief that whatever he did was necessary to preserve the patient's life or health. The doctrine of informed consent is plainly intended to ensure the freedom of individuals to make choices concerning their medical care. (Medical Law & Consent) ibid.
79,006. I start with the fundamental principle, now long established, that every person’s body is inviolate ... in the case of medical treatment, we have to bear well in mind the libertarian principle of self-determination. (Medical Law & Consent & Body) Goff LJ, Sidaway v Governors of Bethlem Hospital  AC 871
98,976. The definition of the duty of care is not to be handed over to the medical or any other profession. The definition of the duty of care is a matter for the law and the courts. John Donaldson MR, Sidaway v Governors of Bethlem Hospital  AC 871
79,007. A legally valid, or real, consent consists of the following elements: (a) it is given by a competent person; (b) it is given voluntarily; (c) it is an informed consent. (Medical Law & Doctor & Consent) I Kennedy & A Grubb, Medical Law (2nd ed)
79,015. The issue for the court, in essence, is to untangle the reasons offered by the differing medical experts, rather than to be concerned superficially with the description of the practice. (Medical Law & Expert) ibid.
79,009. Provided the patient, whether a boy or a girl, is capable of understanding what is proposed, and of expressing his or her own wishes, I see no good reason for holding that he or she lacks the capacity to express them validly and effectively and to authorise the medical man to make the examination or give the treatment he advises. (Medical Law & Consent & Children & Contraception) Lord Fraser, Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA  AC 112,  3 ALL ER 402
79,011. In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is ample scope for genuine difference of opinion, and one man clearly is not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional men, nor because he has displayed less skill or knowledge than others would have done. The true test for establishing negligence in diagnosis or treatment on the part of a doctor is whether he has been proved to be guilty of such failure as no doctor of ordinary skill would be guilty of it acting with ordinary care. (Medical Law & Negligence & Opinion & Doctor & Hospital) McNair J, Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee  2 All ER 118
79,013. To allow expert medical evidence to determine what risks are material and, hence, should be disclosed and, correlatively, what risks are not material is to hand over to the medical profession the entire question of the scope of the duty of disclosure, including the question whether there has been a breach of that duty. (Medical Law & Doctor & Expert) Supreme Court of Canada, Reibl v Hughes (1980) 114 DLR (3d) 1
79,014. Experts may blind themselves by expertise, The courts should protect the citizen against risks which professional men and others may ignore. (Medical Law & Expert & Professional & Negligence) Professor A Montrose, Is Negligence an Ethical or a Sociological Concept? 1958
58,976. The weakest link in the room isn’t usually the drugs or the equipment, it’s us – the surgical team. (Medical Law & Mistake & Surgery & Medicine) Horizon: How to Avoid Mistakes in Surgery, BBC 2013
58,977. Elaine Bromiley case: a routine sinus operation 2005: intubation failed ... their decision-making had become fatally compromised ... they had lost their situational awareness. (Medical Law & Mistake & Surgery & Medicine) ibid.
58,978. By concentration on a single task or activity it’s [brain] capacity to actually monitor other things by the passage of time is severely compromised. (Medical Law & Mistake & Surgery & Medicine) ibid.
58,979. Their checklist doesn’t just catch simple human mistakes ... it helps to flatten the traditional hierarchy. (Medical Law Mistake & Surgery & Medicine) ibid.
58,980. Medicine is waking up to the experience of others. (Medical Law & Mistake & Surgery & Medicine) ibid.
98,974. The first important point to emerge from this symposium is that information is essential for autonomous and therefore rational decision-making. One cannot reason or deliberate about alternative courses of action if one has no information about them ... patients are likely to make irrational decisions if their doctors given them inadequate information. (Consent & Medical Law & Doctor & Ethics) R Gillon (1983), 9 Journal of Medical Ethics 131