Why the British courts rejected the American doctrine of informed consent

G.J. Annas

American Journal of Public Health, 1984, vol. 74, issue 11, 1286-1288

Abstract: In 1984 the English Civil Court of Appeals in Sidaway v. Bethlem Royal Hospital rejected the American doctrine of informed consent, in which the measure of disclosure is based on the patient's need to know, and reasserted the British paternalistic concept based on standard medical practice. Annas analyzes the justices' reasoning and concludes that it was based primarily on misinformation concerning the effect of informed consent on the incidence of malpractice litigation in the U.S. and on a misunderstanding of how the concepts of duty and causation were applied in Canterbury v. Spence. He urges British physicians, even in the absence of a legal mandate, to obtain an informed consent that promotes autonomy and rational decision making and thus strengthens the physician patient relationship.

Date: 1984
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1984:74:11:1286-1288_1

Access Statistics for this article

American Journal of Public Health is currently edited by Alfredo Morabia

More articles in American Journal of Public Health from American Public Health Association
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Christopher F Baum ().