Case shows gets benefit of doubt burden on \u03c0 to prove she didnt consent \u03c0s

Case shows gets benefit of doubt burden on π to

This preview shows page 4 - 6 out of 36 pages.

- Case shows ∆ gets benefit of doubt, burden on π to prove she didn’t consent - π’s behavior was consistent w/ what a reasonable person would think, so it’s implied consent o Reasonable mistake = not liable Consent in emergency situations Schloendorff v. Society of NY Hospital : Surgeon who performs operations w/o patients consent commits assault for which he is liable for damage. - Exception: emergency where patient is unconscious & necessary to operate before consent can be obtained. {Doctrine of implied consent when medical emergency requires immediate action to preserve health/life of patient} Determining the scope of consent Kennedy v. Parrott : During appendectomy on π, surgeon discovered cysts on ovaries so punctured & cut blood vessel & developed painful phlebitis in leg. Ct. rejected trespass claim, saying consent will be construed as general & surgeon can extend to any abnormalities (using sound professional judgment). Hoofnel v. Segal : π was woman w/ limited education & came to surgeon to remove lesion from color. Dr. said to remove uterus & ovaries but π said no. Regardless, signed consent that if needed the surgery can be performed. During surgery, drs agreed to remove both b/c of conditions. Judge said clear & unambiguous words of consent form superseded prior convo. - Existence of consent form = presumption that people read it before signing it, understand it, etc. “to hold otherwise would negate the legal significance to written consent forms signed by the patient and render the consent form complete unreliable” Law protects guardian’s good faith decisions from judicial challenge (substituted judgment/consent) Bonner v. Moran : when minor, consent of parents is necessary Brophy v. New England Sinai Hospital: court allowed wife to cut off all nutrition over objections of treating physicians-- he would have requested termination if competent Lausier v. Pesinski : ct. said they didn’t have power to permit the removal of one of incompetent kidneys, even though the risk of harm was slight, since sister opposed to operations. Curran v. Bosze : court upheld right of mother of 3 ½ year old twins to consenting to bone marrow & not possible to determine the intent of child 4
Image of page 4
Constitutional Rights to Life & Death Cruzan v. Director, Missouri DoH : allowed comatose patient to be disconnected from life support on proof of clear & convincing evidence that she would have adopted that course of action if present while still competent. Consistent w/ this, ct. rejected right of voluntary euthanasia in light of state’s strong interest that is reflected in an unbroken string of state criminal prohibitions. Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. von Eschenbach : claims of personal autonomy don’t support constitutional right to compel the FDA to allow terminally ill cancer patients to use new therapies that passed in Phase I clinical trials.
Image of page 5
Image of page 6

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 36 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture