The right to know--the need to disclose.
The High Court judgment states explicitly that your duty to disclose will now be measured by a legal standard. Gaudron J states: "... there is simply no occasion to consider the practice or practices of medical practitioners in determining what information should be supplied ..." Thus the court in dismissing the appeal has moved substantially to the American position, which emphasizes the right of the patient to make up his or her own mind in the light of the relevant circumstances and the right of the patient to know about material risks, "a right which in turn arises from the patient's right to decide for himself or herself whether or not to submit to the medical treatment proposed". In short, a prudent GP, in the light of this High Court judgment, will talk more, and will write down what has been said.
Nisselle
P
P
D001315:Australia; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007258:Informed Consent; D008318:Malpractice; D009885:Ophthalmology / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D014342:Truth Disclosure