Scott v. Bradford, Supreme Court of OK, 1979 Was Jury Issue Reasoning If Dr. obtains consent but does not inform then that consent is defective and the patient has a cause of action. A Dr. subjects himself to liability if does not disclose to patient all these. 1. Rule Must obtain patient informed consent Facts (1) P was operated on by D to remove several fibroid tumors. (2) She signed a routine consent form prior to the operation. a. Patients have the right of self-determination. They decide what is to be done to them. If patient says, I would have continued with treatment, then no action. If he says no, then the causation problem must be resolved by examining the credibility of P’s testimony. Jury will need to figure out if P would have indeed refused the treatment. Adequate information about i. treatment ii. Available alternatives iii. collateral risks b. if patient informed of risks, would not have consented (self-determination) (“reasonable patient” is bad law, it negates selfdetermination) (4) She testified that had she known of the risks she would not have had the operation done. c. Undisclosed risks materialized (3) after the operation, she suffered Loss of bladder and/or bowel control. Another dr. found that she had vesico-vaginal fistula. Held Procedure P argues D argues Establishing new rule – effective from now on… Affirmed verdict. P sued for medical malpractice. Jury instructions included that D should have disclosed material risks of the hysterectomy and feasibility of alternatives. These were broad enough adnd do represent the law. D won and P objected to the jury instructions. P appeals.
Pages to are hidden for
"StandardOfCare_ReasonablePrudentPerson_Professional_Scott_v_Bradford"Please download to view full document