Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Profesional Negligence, legal ross v caunters - Coggle Diagram
Profesional Negligence
-
consent
-
-
UK approach
professional point of view - doctor disclose any information someone in their field would disclose Bolam v Friern Hospital Management
US approach
patient perspective - all facts, risks and alternatives a reasonable person would consider important
Irish Approach
Walsh v Family Planning Services had vasectomy, told operation would be painless, safe and no side effects - suffers from severe pain after, eventually has one teste removed - test reasonable patient approach should have been informed of risk
Geohegan v Harris dental surgery, chronic pain after, no expert witness would have given warning - court held - must disclose all known risks of severe consequence or severe pain - no liability due to lack of causation (disinterest in talking about side effects, was forced to come in, would have gone ahead regardless)
some critcism as elecctive operation and benefits didn't outweigh detriment, complication not minor or trivial
Fitzpatrick v White plaintiff born with squint and underwent further cosmetic surgery, told just before some risks - after left with worse squint - if significant risk doctor should inform patient
who is a professional
-
more broad as can be seen from Barlow v Minister for Communications mussel fishing, minister managing natural resources - shows beyond traditional professions
standard of behaviour
Bolan v Friern hospital management committee test is ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to have that special skill
customary practice normally sufficient unless inherent defect in practice which is obvious to anyone giving matter due consideration - O'Donovan v Cork County Council
-
Morrissey v HSE Dunne Test can be reduced to one overarching principle - apply standard appropriate to person of equal specialist acting with ordinary care
Dunne v National Maternity Hospital can escape liability if follow practice approved by colleagues of similar specialisation and skill unless inherent defect obvious to any person gving due consideration
key principles
if deviated from general and approved practice not negligent if no other doctor of like specialisation and skill would have done likewise
-
was doctor guilty of failure no other doctor of equal standing and skill would have done exercising ordinary care
can have two valid ways of treating patient, not liable by going with one over the other
-
-
-
-
-
-
volunteers
civil liability act 2011 - volunteers and good samaritans only liable if acted in gross negligence or bad faith - does not apply if have duty to act - part 3
-
-
-