Brown Undergraduate Law Review — Vol. 2 No. 2 (Spring 2021)

More documents

Recommendations

Info

STANDARDIZING AUTONOMY: MEDICAL COMMUNICATION, LIABILITY, AND THE DOCTRINE OF INFORMED CONSENT Liza Edwards-Levin ABSTRACT This paper critically examines the legal history and social significance of the informed consent doctrine of medical malpractice law in the United States. Continually referring back to the landmark case of Canterbury v. Spence (1972), I analyze the reasoning behind several key legal decisions that influenced the development of medical informed consent law. My analysis centers around the complexity of at once upholding patients' autonomy and respecting physicians' professional expertise in the eyes of the law, through analyzing several widely-debated aspects of medical informed consent law (such as reasonable disclosure standards) that continue to be interpreted differently between and even within states. Brown Undergraduate Law Review 32
Standardizing Autonomy: Medical Communication, Liability, and the Doctrine of Informed Consent Canterbury Sets the Stage violated his duty to disclose the operation?s risks. 5 Unlike When 19-year-old Jerry Canterbury entered surgery to traditional medical battery law, which applied only to relieve pressure on his spinal cord in 1972, he could not procedures performed without a patient?s authorization, have known what he was in for: a future disabled by Canterbury v. Spence established that in order to obtain urinary incontinence and partial paralysis from the waist consent, physicians must inform their patients of a down. 1 Having complained of back and neck pain, treatment?s material risks and alternatives. In this sense, a Canterbury agreed to undergo a laminectomy (removing patient?s ?lack of informed consent operates to negate part of the vertebral bone) at the recommendation of [their] authorization for a procedure.? 6 In addition to neurosurgeon William Spence, who examined Canterbury drawing on the doctrine of medical battery, the appeals to find evidence of a ruptured disk. When Canterbury?s court characterized Canterbury?s claim against Spence as mother inquired about the seriousness of the procedure, Dr. one of negligence, stating, ?[Canterbury?s] interest in Spence described it as relatively low-risk, ?not any more bodily integrity commanded protection, not only against an [serious] than any other operation.? 2 Following the intentional invasion by an unauthorized operation but also surgery, however, Canterbury slipped out of his hospital against a negligent invasion by his physician?s dereliction bed while attempting to urinate, after which his legs of duty to adequately disclose.? 7 became numb and paralysis ensued. In the words of the Canterbury v. Spence also marked a historic shift toward D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, today?s doctrine of medical protecting patients?autonomy? every adult?s fundamental informed consent law was precipitated by Canterbury?s ?depressing tale? of medical practice gone wrong? and his ?right to determine what shall be done with his own ?understandable search for reasons.? 3 body?? over and above physicians?expertise. 8 The appeals court recognized that patients, typically lacking Canterbury v. Spence (1972) expanded the physician?s sophisticated medical knowledge, rely upon doctors to duty to care under medical malpractice law to include the fulfill their ?vital informational needs.? 9 Further, obligation to disclose relevant information. 4 In a landmark Canterbury ?judicially mandated? this doctor-to-patient ruling that crystallized a new means of adjudicating information transfer by stating that physicians, not informed consent, the Canterbury appeals court reversed patients, are responsible for ensuring appropriate the district court?s award of directed verdicts to the disclosure (that is, ?describing the proposed treatment, its Defendants (Dr. Spence and the hospital), ruling that risks, benefits, complications and alternatives [including sufficient evidence existed to establish that Dr. Spence 1. Sam Roberts, ?Jerry Canterbury, Whose Paralysis Led to Informed Consent Laws, Is Dead at 78,? The New York Times, May 16, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/jerry-canterbury-medical-consent-paralysis.html. 2. Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (1972). 3. Ibid., 464 F.2d 772. 4. May Anne Bobinski, ?Law and Power in Health Care: Challenges to Physician Control,? Buffalo Law Review 67 (May 2019): 616. 5. Ibid., 614. 6. Clinton L. Kelly, ?THE RISE OF MEDICAL BATTERY AND INFORMED CONSENT,? Tennessee Bar Journal 52 (August 2016): 22. 7. Canterbury, 464 F.2d 793. 8. Ibid., 464 F.2d 780 (citing Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital (1914)). 9. Ibid., 464 F.2d 782. Brown Undergraduate Law Review 33
Page 1 and 2: Spring 2021 || Vol. 2 || No. 2 b r
Page 3 and 4: BROWN UNDERGRADUATE LAW REVIEW 2021
Page 5 and 6: A Letter from the Editors ?current?
Page 7 and 8: THE FAILURE OF THE TREATMENT OF LOW
Page 9 and 10: The Failure of the Treatment of Low
Page 21 and 22: TARGETING MUSLIMS AND CIVIL LIBERTI
Page 23 and 24: Targeting Muslims and Civil Liberti
Page 31: Targeting Muslims and Civil Liberti
Page 35 and 36: Standardizing Autonomy: Medical Com
Page 47 and 48: The Legal Precedents for Police Bru
Page 55 and 56: The Future of the Fourteenth Amendm
Page 57 and 58: THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE LAW REGIME
Page 59 and 60: while the latter is not. This does
Page 61 and 62: Created by an act of the GA in 1959
Page 63 and 64: shall be responsible for national s
Page 65 and 66: ?accounts for three-quarters of off
Page 67 and 68: Introduction The concept of environ
Page 69 and 70: the Convention. The language of the
Page 71 and 72: Convention. First, the Nansen Initi
Page 73 and 74: and other particularly vulnerable g
Page 75 and 76: NATIVE SOVEREIGNTY, JURISDICTION, A
Page 77 and 78: Native Sovereignty, Jurisdiction, a
Page 83 and 84:
Native Sovereignty, Jurisdiction, a
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Potential Solutions to Jurisdiction
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
PROSCRIBABLE THOUGHTS: U.S. HATE CR
Page 93 and 94:
Proscribable Thoughts: U.S. Hate Cr
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
101
Page 103 and 104:
Featured Articles The Constitutiona
show all

Brown Undergraduate Law Review — Vol. 2 No. 2 (Spring 2021)

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?