FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 662 times | Saved to 269 briefcases
Haughian v Paine, [1987] 4 WWR 97, 55 Sask R 99 (Sask CA)


Patient had surgery that left him paralyzed. Second operation partially alleviated the paralysis. Plaintiff argued that defendant surgeon failed to get informed consent from patient (husband): to inform the patient that there were risk-less alternatives.


Does informed consent require the disclosure of medical risk to the person consenting?


Informed consent requires the adequate disclosure of medical risk with sufficient information to the person consenting.


There must be adequate discussion of the consequences of leaving an ailment untreated (and alternatives).

Because the plaintiff/appellant was not informed of the risk, he could not give informed consent.

Even though risk is low, statistics are only one factor of many that constitute risk.


Appeal allowed, judgement for plaintiff.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.