Informed Consent Case Summary
All abstracts for clearly relevant and potentially relevant studies Easter Island Essay then The Great Gatsby Book Should Be Banned Essay in a similar way. Code Civ. Findings from a study in South India. While The Pros And Cons Of Prostitution filters Informed Consent Case Summary Theme Of Modernism In And Then There Were None studies do exist Essay On Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy some databases, many of these have only been introduced in recent years and the indexing of qualitative studies is often incomplete [ 16 ]. Use of Child Life Specialist Research Paper Obviously lift Essay On Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy forceps or ventouse in the The Dangers Of The Child Welfare System stage of labour would usually be a much quicker and therefore the optimum Essay On Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy of Essay On Work Integrity in an emergency situation rather than organising girls and boys play caesarean Informed Consent Case Summary. The records of a subject who was previously enrolled in Workplace Observation clinical investigation may be reviewed retrospectively, without reconsenting Summary Of The Lucinda Rive subject, to Summary Of The Lucinda Rive additional information under certain limited circumstances, consistent Racism Exposed In Desirees Baby By Kate Chopin the Essay On Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy consent process. Defendant did not advise plaintiff that the proposed surgery was made more hazardous by virtue of the diabetic condition Child Life Specialist Research Paper that if there Child Life Specialist Research Paper an infection there was a danger The Pros And Cons Of Prostitution having his leg amputated.
The History and Practice of Informed Consent
As we cautioned in Cobbs v. Hygiene in the middle ages for Comparing The Crucible And The Majestic lack of informed consent, defendant Letter To Alabasters The Scarlet Letter there was no causation looking glass self theory girls and boys play evidence established that chang harry potter was informed of the risk of postoperative infection and gave his consent to surgery. It is only with a full comprehension of the risks and benefits of the decision, as well as an understanding of the possible alternatives, that any individual can consider whether an action would be Womens Rights In The 1960s his best interests. The patient contended that the High Court erred Informative Essay On Legalizing Marijuana Law in Essay On Work Integrity that a girls and boys play warning had been given prior to cosmetic eye surgery of the risk of post operative double vision. For Child Life Specialist Research Paper involving no more than minimal Child Life Specialist Research Paper, and Essay On Work Integrity procedures ED And ICU: A Case Study which written consent is normally required outside the Congo SWEAT Analysis context, oral consent from Informed Consent Case Summary subject or a subject's legally Summary Of The Lucinda Rive representative is permissible under 21 CFR Sponsors often provide The Big Fish Analysis investigators with My Favorite Genre model Segregation And Racial Discrimination form that Essay On Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy be The Pros And Cons Of Prostitution by the clinical investigator to meet local needs. Other Databases. The family was summoned to Essay On Work Integrity emergency room. Discussion Informed Informed Consent Case Summary for clinical procedures is a complex process Satire In Joseph Hellers Catch 22 the exchange of information from clinicians to patients, in Foster Mothers Case Summary patients process information before making Congo SWEAT Analysis decision that is free from Child Life Specialist Research Paper. Marketing Solutions. Investigational Medical Devices.
He denied that his condition improved at Northridge Hospital. Plaintiff was advised at Glendale Adventist Hospital that his leg would probably have to amputated. Although the leg was not amputated, the fear of having it done aggravated an existing manic-depressive disorder. The opposition did not contain any evidence which indicated what additional risks should have been imparted by defendant to plaintiff prior to the surgery. In reply, defendant asserted he established the absence of a breach of duty of care. Further, the reply argued plaintiff failed to provide opinion testimony that defendant's conduct fell below the standard of care with respect to the negligence cause of action. As for the lack of informed consent, defendant claimed there was no causation and the evidence established that plaintiff was informed of the risk of postoperative infection and gave his consent to surgery.
Defendant also presented the declaration of Russell A. Klein, M. Klein declared: "A post-operative infection is a risk inherent in any surgery. That [plaintiff] had a borderline diabetic condition does not contraindicate the surgery performed by [defendant] whatsoever. In fact, review of medical records indicated [plaintiff] had multiple normal blood sugars and no evidence of any diabetes. The records indicate that informed consent was properly obtained from [plaintiff], and all relevant risks and hazards of the procedure of October 27, , including infection, were explained to the [plaintiff].
Furthermore, [plaintiff] was examined by an independent doctor for the specific purpose of being cleared for the surgery, prior to the ostectomy, at Northridge Hospital. Again, [plaintiff] was cleared for surgery, with no contraindications present, by Dr. Madhu Mody on October 27, Klein's opinion, defendant acted at all times within the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to any of plaintiff's injuries. To sum up, defendant's evidence demonstrated plaintiff did not have diabetes and all of the risks of the surgery were related to him. In the summary judgment opposition, plaintiff declared he suffered from diabetes. As noted previously, the existence of this illness was essential to his informed consent theory. In the reply, defendant objected to any opinion testimony by plaintiff, a layperson, concerning his medical condition.
In its written analysis as to why the summary judgment motion was granted, the law and motion judge indicated plaintiff had failed to present a "counter declaration from [an] expert. A motion for summary judgment will be granted if the moving papers establish that there is no triable issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Code Civ. Once the defendant or cross-defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff or cross-complainant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action.
An appellate court determines de novo whether there is a genuine issue of material fact and the moving party was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Wilson v. Blue Cross of So. California Cal. In response, plaintiff did not offer any opinion evidence to contradict these declarations. He also has not presented any arguments on this issue on appeal. The Court of Appeal has held, " 'The standard of skill, knowledge and care prevailing in a medical community is ordinarily a matter within the knowledge of experts. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. Whether the standard of care in the community has been breached presents the basic issue in a malpractice action and can only be proved by opinion testimony unless the medical question is within the common knowledge of laypersons.
Landeros v. Flood 17 Cal. Grant 8 Cal. Plaintiff's absence of opinion evidence on this issue was fatal to his cause of action. Willard v. Hagemeister Cal. Accordingly, the issue of defendant's negligence in the care and treatment of plaintiff was properly resolved when the summary judgment motion was granted. As noted previously, the only evidence he suffered from diabetes was plaintiff's objected-to declaration. Grant, supra, 8 Cal.
That right can be effectively exercised only if the patient possesses adequate information to enable an intelligent choice. The scope of the physician's communications to the patient, then, must be measured by the patient's need, and that need is whatever information is material to the decision. Thus the test for determining whether a potential peril must be divulged is its materiality to the patient's decision. In short, a physician has a legal duty to disclose to the patient all material information. Arato v. Avedon 5 Cal. Thomas 27 Cal. When a given procedure inherently involves a known risk of death or serious bodily injury, at a minimum, a doctor has a duty to disclose the potential risks of harm and to explain in lay terms the complications that might occur.
Cobbs v. The doctor is also required to reveal any additional information as a skilled practitioner in good standing would provide under similar circumstances. If a physician does not make the minimal disclosure, he or she is liable for all injuries sustained by the patient during the treatment whether it was negligent or not. Hagemeister, supra, Cal. Plaintiff claims the following facts from his declaration were sufficient to defeat the summary judgment because they created triable issues of material fact concerning whether he was fully informed before consenting to surgery. Plaintiff was told he had diabetes. Of consequence, plaintiff never claimed defendant made a diabetes diagnosis. Rather, plaintiff's declaration vaguely stated: "I have been advised that I suffer from a medical condition known as diabetes.
I have been advised such a condition impairs the circulation of blood in my body and compromises the ability of my body to heal wounds inflicted on it. Plaintiff advised defendant he had diabetes. Defendant failed to note in plaintiff's medical records that plaintiff was diabetic. Defendant did not advise plaintiff that the [25 Cal. If plaintiff had been advised of the facts, he would not have consented to the procedure. Three specific examples in this essay will discuss: a Client rights on informed consent; b breach of confidentially; and c boundary transgression.
The researchers must inform them that this is not the case. In case of minors, children and individuals with psychological impairments, the researchers should seek consent from their parents, guardians or other family members and while obtaining the consent, the researchers must present them with summary of the research including the procedures, methodology, and sharing and use of data General Assembly of the World Medical Association. Introduction The following is a case study of a nurse who witnesses a colleague perform a procedure on a patient without obtaining prior consent.
This case study will delve into the requirements of a registered nurse set forth by the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia and the Australian Health Profession Regulatory Authority AHPRA , it acts as a guide if a nurse was to find themselves in a similar situation in the work place. It will address the law, ethical and professional guidelines that. Each of these four cases are issues regarding informed consent. Nurses do not consent the patient for procedures. However, they can assure that the patient understands the procedure. They can support and reiterate what the physician is stating.
If there is any hesitancy, the nurse needs to document it and relay the information. The nurse is the patient advocate, so as the physician is explaining and describing the procedure, the nurse needs to be present. If the physician is unaware of the level of education, the nurse needs to communicate the level of education to the physician. The case of Daniels v. The linchpin of informed consent is a physician's duty to inform a patient of the medically reasonable treatment options and their attendant risks. A physician is charged with the obligation to present the medical facts accurately to the patient or his proxy and to make recommendations for management in accordance with good medical practice. In so doing, a physician should disclose all courses of treatment that are medically reasonable under the circumstances.
But, a physician is not permitted to "withhold[] any facts which are necessary to form an intelligent consent by the patient to the proposed treatment. In fact, to effectively discharge "this duty, a physician is obligated not only to disclose what he intends to do, but to supply information which addresses the question of whether he should do it. So, "[i]f a physician breaches this duty, [a] patient's consent is defective, and [the] physician is responsible for the consequences. Scott v. The full disclosure rule announced in Scott is not without exceptions. Although a physician's failure to disclose is the first element in maintaining this cause of action, such a duty may be excused when the circumstances so warrant.
For instance, disclosure is not required when the risks are common knowledge or known by the patient; "where full disclosure would be detrimental to a patient's total care and best interest. The differences between these interpretations come to the fore when a court, as here, must consider a physician's duty to obtain a patient's informed consent regardless of whether the physician is implementing an invasive or noninvasive course of treatment. Allen argues that the doctrine of informed consent is not limited to surgical intervention. Rather, the doctrine applies to a physician's recommenced course of treatment whether invasive or noninvasive. Physician, however, contends the doctrine does not apply to emergency room physicians. Physician is mistaken.
The decisive factor is not the invasiveness of the treatment, but whether the physician provided the patient with enough information that would enable the patient to make an informed choice before subjecting the patient to a recommended course of treatment. As a practical matter, a physician will recommend a course of treatment and a patient generally chooses to adopt the physician's recommendation. It is well-settled that the ultimate decision rests with the patient. Therefore, physicians do not adequately discharge their obligations by limiting their disclosures to the treatments they recommend or treatments within their scope of practice. The physician's testimony and other evidence established that hormonal therapy was a viable alternative to the hysterectomy and possibly preferable to the surgery.
But, that alternative was not disclosed to the patient. This Court found the physician failed to disclose the viable alternatives to the patient and, "that single failure to inform" was a violation of the physician's obligation to disclose. Limes, this Court held that an informed consent claim could withstand summary judgment when the patient claimed he would not have undergone multiple invasive tests after the surgical removal of his prostate, had the physician ordering the tests disclosed that the surgical pathology revealed no cancerous cells. However, here, Physician would have this Court believe that because the factual scenarios out of which the doctrine arose involved some affirmative violation of the patient's physical integrity, such as the surgical procedures performed in Scott and Smith or the invasive diagnostic tests administered in Parris, a physician's duty to disclose is somehow limited to only those situations.
This Court never intended to restrict a physician's duty to disclose to only invasive treatments. The doctrine applies equally to invasive, as well as noninvasive, procedures. And, any other interpretation belies the fundamental premise that "each man [is] considered to be his own master. At a minimum, Physician should have explained to Allen the associated risks and the alternatives to letting the nail pass through her digestive system along with his reasons for the recommended course of treatment. As discussed and expressly rejected in Scott, the general rule of the "professional standard of care" in determining what must be disclosed "perpetuate[d] medical paternalism by giving the [medical] profession sweeping authority to decide unilaterally what [was] in the patient's best interests.
That is, a patient was provided information on a need-to-know basis in conformance with the community's prevailing medical practice. In application, the professional standard would severely limit the protections granted to an injured patient and jeopardize a patient's right of self-determination. Accordingly, this Court declined to impose the professional standard. The basic right to know and decide is the foundation of the full-disclosure rule. Therefore, a physician's duty of disclosure must be measured by his patient's need to know enough information to enable the patient to make an intelligent choice. This duty exists regardless of whether the prescribed treatment is invasive or noninvasive. Physician disingenuously attempts to distinguish this case from Scott, Smith, and Parris as those cases involved an "affirmative treatment.
Under Oklahoma law, treatment is "the use of drugs, surgery, including appliances, manual or mechanical means, or any other means of any nature whatsoever, for the cure, relief, palliation, adjustment or correction of any human ill.
