FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 678 times | Saved to 281 briefcases
Haughian v Paine, [1987] 4 WWR 97, 55 Sask R 99 (Sask CA)

Facts:

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.

Issue(s):

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

Ratio:

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

Analysis:

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.

Holding:

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.