Document Type
Article
Disciplines
International Law
Abstract
Most civilised societies acknowledge a medical patient's fundamental right to elect whether or not to consent to a particular course of therapeutic treatment.1 In recent years in the United States,2 and to a lesser extent in England and the British Commonwealth 3 a number of actions have been brought by patients seeking to recover from physicians compensation for injuries resulting solely from the manifestation of risks inherent in the course of undergoing therapeutic medical treatment. These actions have been founded on the ground that the physician did not adequately inform the patient of the existence of such inherent risks, in order to enable the patient to give truly "informed consent" to the course of treatment. The concept behind such a course of action has been judicially4 and academically" described as "the doctrine of informed consent". This article will examine the legal framework of the doctrine of informed consent that gives rise to such a cause of action. The article will compare California and English law and how these jurisdictions may impose upon a physician" an affirmative legal duty to inform a patient of full age and capacity of the risks inherent in any particular course of therapeutic treatment.
Recommended Citation
Churchward, Adrian B., "A Comparative Study of the Law Relating to the Physician's Duty to Obtain the Patient's "Informed Consent" to Medical Treatment in England and California" (1990). Connecticut Journal of International Law. 127.
https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/cjil/127
Accessibility Requirements
1