ProfessorMelissa A. Hale
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
Brief Fact Summary. Canterbury (Plaintiff) claimed that prior to Plaintiff’s spinal surgery, surgeon Spence (Defendant) did not disclose the possible consequence of paralysis which the Plaintiff then developed as a result of the surgery.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A physician must disclose all risks to a patient, prior to a medical procedure, which a reasonable person would consider significant in deciding whether to go forward with the procedure.
Issue. Must a doctor disclose all risks to a patient, prior to a medical procedure, which a reasonable person would consider significant in deciding whether to go forward with the procedure?
Held. (Robinson, J.) Yes. A doctor must disclose all risks to a patient, prior to a medical procedure, which a reasonable person would consider significant in deciding whether to go forward with the procedure. It is universally accepted that a patient must give consent before undergoing a surgical procedure. It is further accepted that such consent must be informed, as the average lay patient does not have the expertise to make unassisted judgments regarding any particular medical treatment’s propriety. The risks of a certain procedure are clearly an element that must be disclosed. However, the question arises regarding what risks must be disclosed. Many courts have held, and the district court below agreed, that the answer to this question is what is standard in the medical community for the type of procedure indicated. This court does not agree. First, as a practical matter, no particular custom will exist on a profession-wide basis. In addition, such a rule would delegate to the medical community a decision which should be made by individual doctors. The standard should rather be one of reasonableness: would a reasonable patient consider a particular risk significant in evaluating whether or not to go forward with a procedure? This “reasonable patient” standard is consistent with the general thrust of tort and malpractice law and expert testimony is not required. Therefore, Plaintiff’s failure to provide such testimony was not fatal to his case. Based on the facts, a jury should determine whether there was sufficient disclosure. Reversed and remanded.
A persuasive case on the question of informed consent is Canterbury v. Spence where the court held that the duty to disclose is not determined by medical custom, rather, it depends on the patient's right to know and to consent to treatment: in our view, the patient's right of self-determination shapes the boundaries of the duty to reveal.View Full Point of Law