Exam (elaborations)
Medical Law and Ethics Revision Notes - Distinction
- Course
- Institution
I achieved a distinction with these revision notes for Medical Law and Ethics at a Russell Group University.
[Show more]
3 reviews
By: amiracastelli • 6 year ago
By: nainadevi • 6 year ago
By: yusracabdulqadir • 6 year ago
Seller
Follow
lawnotesxo2
Reviews received
Content preview
CONSENT o Not informed of alternative treatmentsBIRCH
o + Giving info may be harmful
X v A mother
- 1-2% risk of stroke = disclosed, but ≠ told about MRI scan w/ no risk of stroke - Not in children’s best interests to be tested for Huntington’s Disease, but no cure ∴ info
• Consent must be: - Causation: If warned, she wouldn’t have undertook angiogram = negligent harms > benefits
o Voluntary
o By someone w/ capacity • + APPLEBAUM: Doctors spend ↑ time finding out matters relevant to patient = ↑ patient care • - KIHLBOM: Patients may argue “if informed, wouldn’t have consented”
o Informed ‘in broad terms’ about treatment o ∴ ↑ Patient-focused, b/c asks what patient wants to know > what colleagues would do • - MANSON: Open communication = shows respect
§ 1) Respects patient autonomy, b/c right to decide what’s done to her body
§ 2) Patient chooses best treatments suited to her ∴ better outcomes • - 1) Doctors ≠ know what patient expects ∴ asks colleagues
§ 3) Info ↓ doctor-patient power imbalance
1) BATTERY = rare
• - 2) “Reasonable patient” may not reflect patient’s actual preference ≠ respect right to autonomy
PARTICULAR PATIENT TEST
CAPACITY *< 16 = competence / 16-17 = capacity
• Battery: Treating w/o consent • What a particular patient needs to make a decision? Consider factors relevant to patient; no set % of risk
CONSENT *Requires consent for each proposed intervention, e.g. pain relief, initial checks, transport to hospital
o No consent MONTGOMERY
• May infer by conduct, e.g. puts arm out for blood test
CHATTERTON - Diabetic mother worried about size of baby
- 9-10% shoulder dystocia = baby born severely disabled • Free to withdraw consent at anytime
- D disclosed treatment method, but ≠ warn of possible numbness
- Court: If informed in broad terms of nature of treatment + consented = “real consent” ≠ battery - Doctor evidence: If every woman given this info = all (incl. M) opt for caesarean section PRINCIPLE OF AUTONOMY
- Court: Whether reasonable person, in patient’s position, likely to attach significance to the risk / • Art 8: Right to make key decisions on private life, incl. treatment
o Diff procedure was performed
doctor should be reasonably aware that particular patient would be likely to attach significance to it? Bland
§ Requires deliberately inflicted injury
- “Significance”: Nature of risk, effect on patient, importance to patient of treatment benefits, - If capacity = priority given to autonomy, even if against best interests
APPLETON
available alternatives + its risks § - Individualistic ≠ consider impact on others (dependent kids)
- Dentist carried out unnecessary treatment for financial gain
- Court: Withheld info in bad faith + knew patients wouldn’t consent if properly informed = battery § - GLICK: May regret ∴ respecting SR AUTONOMY to die = deprived of autonomy to make future decisions
• + 1) CAPRON: Subjective standard ↑ autonomy = tailors info according to patient’s priorities + concerns
o Consent vitiated by fraud • + 2) MACLEAN: Engaging w/ each other facilitates patient’s ability to further own goals/values PREGNANT WOMAN’S REFUSAL SB / S / St George / MB ; SR
TABASSUM • + 3) FADEN: Focuses on patients asking Qs > doctor deciding what info to disclose • If capacity, may refuse treatment
- Women consented to a sham breast examination SB *Abortion topic
- Court: Not true consent b/c mistakenly believe T = medically qualified • - In practice, patients ≠ explain all relevant info in brief consultation ∴ doctors can’t predict what factors
VS. are significant to them Re S
Richardson - Pregnancy ≠ ↓ competent patient’s right to refuse treatment
OTHER APPROACHES
- Suspended dentist continued treating patients
• 1) Full information: Disclose every risk = ↑ patient autonomy, b/c decides which risks willing to take o Irrational decision ≠ mean incompetent
- Court: Cannot vitiate consent b/c victim ≠ mistaken as to the dentist’s identity
• 2) Disclose major risks + give leaflet w/ all risk ∴ up to patient to find out more St George’s NHS v S
• Requires physical contact, but not physical harm *Not informed of side effects ≠ claim battery - Unlawful to perform caesarean against her wishes, despite her + baby die w/o it
CAUSATION - Even if decision = “morally repugnant”
• Doctor exercising reasonable care + skill ≠ defence
• “But for” test:
2) NEGLIGENCE *Sue hospital vicariously? o 1) Injury made her worse off than if procedure hadn’t been performed • If lacks capacity, treatment in her best interests
o 2) Injury materialised b/c negligently undisclosed risk MB à TEMPORARILY INCOMPETENT
• Patient inadequately informed before treatment + suffers injury b/c doctor’s failure to disclose
o 3) If informed of risk, wouldn’t have consented to treatment ∴ breach caused harm - Needle phobia = refused caesarean to save her + baby’s life
o Duty of care: Provide patients w/ info
PEARCE - Court: Needle phobia rendered her temporarily incompetent ∴in best interests to give birth
o Breached duty of care
o Harm caused by breach - Even if disclosed risk, would still follow doctor’s advice § Temporary factors that erode capacity: e.g. shock, pain, drugs
§ HERRING: Impulsiveness ≠ our true values
STANDARD OF CARE BIRCH
- B explicitly said if comparative risks explained to her, would’ve chosen MRI INCAPACITY
REASONABLE DOCTOR TEST
- Accepted b/c B = intelligent + sensible individual able to make that decision • < 16: Presumed to lack capacity, unless Gillick competent
• What a reasonable doctor would disclose? = judged against responsible body of medical opinion
BOLAM § CAPRON: If patient ≠ intelligent + sensible = undermines patient’s right to make foolish
• 16-17: Presumed to have capacity to consent [s8 Family Law Reform Act 1969)
- Small risk of fracture in electroconvulsive therapy ≠ disclosed ∴ fractured hip decisions + opt for riskier treatments
• 18+: Presumed to have capacity
- Medical opinion varied on whether to warn patients of such risk ≠ negligent • 16+: If lacks capacity = MCA
CHESTER
∴ Acted accordingly to accepted practice of responsible body of medical opinion - She would’ve had operation, but at diff time = causation
CHILDREN < 16
- Court: Enough to show she wouldn’t have consented at the time
• + 1) Easy to apply w/ expert witnesses • Effective consent by:
- Lord HOFFMAN dissented: ‘But for’ test failed, b/c operation timing ≠ affect risk of injury
o VS. If doctor ≠ know patient = hard to guess what patient would want to know o Gillick-competent
§ FOSTER: Easy to prove causation - ‘if properly warned, would have decided at later date”
§ JACKSON: Doctors give excessive info to avoid liability = ↓ ability to make informed choice, b/c o Parental responsibility
attach ↑ importance to remote risks + refuses potentially successful treatments • JACKSON: *Patient has right to info, but can’t take advantage of it
o Court order
• + 2) Law respects diversity of views on ways to deal w/ patients o - 1) If successful operation = hard to prove loss for information disclosure • If child refuses, parent can consent
• + 3) Doctors = best placed to know what risks patients worry about o - 2) Doctor created situation in which the risk materialised > cause injury • If child + parent refuses, court order
o Highlighting a few key risks = ↑ valuable to patients > information overload • - 3) MILLER: Doctors play God by not disclosing treatments, b/c some patients can pay privately for care 1) PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
• - 1) Paternalistic: Doctor determines which treatments are proposed ∴ patient can only accept/reject THERAPEUTIC PRIVILEGE • Presumed to lack capacity ∴ those w/ parental responsibility may consent to child’s treatment
o O’NEILL: Choosing from simplified menu ≠ autonomy • If disclosing info seriously deteriorates patient’s health = may withhold info • Requires consent of 1 parent
• - 2) ↓ Patient’s right to autonomy o Burden on doctor to justify non-disclosure SR
o LESSER: Tolerability of side effects = best judged from patient’s POV ≠ require clinical expertise • - HEYWOOD: Mostly unused, b/c few circumstances justify full non-disclosure - Mother refused, father consented ∴ sufficient to provide treatment
• - 3) No guidance on what to disclose, b/c determined retrospectively by courts • - Paternalistic: Applies if patient has no rights/capacity Right to participate
• - 4) Ignores role of other healthcare professionals, e.g. nurses = ↑ time to discuss treatment options w/ patients
PRESENTING INFORMATION • GMC Guidance: Even if ≠ Gillick-competent, doctors should incl. children in decisions
PRUDENT PATIENT TEST • Reasonable steps to ensure patient understands info e.g. translation, JR doctors ≠ experienced to communicate w/ patients 2) GILLICK-COMPETENT CHILD
• What a prudent patient, in patient’s position, would want to know? Lybert • Child w/ sufficient maturity + understanding to make competent decision = valid consent
SIDAWAY - Disclosed risks of failing to achieve sterility after operation = negligent GILLICK
- 1-2% spinal damage ≠ disclosed - Argued Department of Health guidance ≠ lawful, b/c doctor shouldn’t give contraceptive advice/
- No reasonable body of medical opinion would disclose this risk ≠ negligent • MIOLA: Law focuses on risk disclosure > understanding the info ≠ maximise our autonomy
treatment to < 16 w/o parent’s consent
- Lord SCARMAN: Prudent patient test - Court: If < 16 w/ sufficient maturity to understand what’s involved = capacity
DUTY TO ANSWER Qs
- Lord DIPLOCK: Bolam test § Doctors may continue w/o parent’s consent if –
Sidaway
- Lord BRIDGE: Modified Bolam test 1) Understands advice
- Duty on doctors to answer Qs
- Bolam test, unless courts decide ought to disclose substantial risk of grave adverse 2) Cannot persuade her to inform parents / allow doctor to inform parents that she’s seeking
consequences (10%) • Unfair: Patients ask Qs (given full info) vs. patients that don’t ask (standardised info) contraceptive advice
- Lord TEMPLEMAN: Modified Bolam test o BRAZIER: Favours educated patients at expense of shy patients 3) Child will continue to have sex
- If special risk to patient, Bolam ≠ decisive o Some patients are better at asking Qs than others 4) If doesn’t receive contraceptive advice/treatment, physical/mental health = affected
Poyntor 5) In her best interests to receive contraceptive advice/treatment w/o parent’s consent
PEARCE
- Parents ≠ ask precise enough Qs on place doctor under duty to disclose 1% risk of § Lord SCARMAN: If Gillick-competent = replaces parents’ right to consent
- Natural birth w/ 0.1% risk of stillbirth ≠ disclosed
permanent brain damage § HERRING: Child’s privacy rights = right to decide whether to tell parents
- Court: If significant risk affects judgment of reasonable patient, should inform
- Reasonable patient wouldn’t expect risk to be disclosed b/c low probability RIGHT NOT TO KNOW AXON
• HERRING: Should have a recognised right not to know - Argued Department of Health guidance ≠ lawful, b/c permits doctor to perform abortion on
CHESTER
o + Forcing unwanted info on patient = breaches right to privacy daughters w/o parent’s knowledge = Art 8 breach
- Back pain, 1-2% nerve damage ≠ disclosed
o + Ignorance may help individual make a decision = ↑ autonomy > frustrates - Court: Gillick applies to abortions
- Medical opinion would disclose small, but well-established risk of serious injury
§ - If don’t know what info is, how can you decide you don’t want it? ∴ can’t exercise autonomy - Otherwise, lack of confidentiality deters young people seeking advice + treatment ≠ desirable
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller lawnotesxo2. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $13.53. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
53068 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now