Schloendorff v Society of New York Hospital 211 NY 125 at 129
4
0005488327
105 NE 92, 93 per Cardozo J. From a moral perspective see-for example, Gillon R. Philosophical medical ethics. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons 1985, 1992
Chatterton v Gerson 1 All ER 257. This standard relates to trespass. An additional information requirement, notably in relation to risks, is required in negligence. However, the distinction, although important, is the purposes of this paper. In this article, I am addressing the overall adequacy of the disclosed information rather than whether that information is regulated in trespass or negligence. Of the cases, only action, and in that case, McCullough J held (obiter-incidental to the reason for the judge's decision) that the result would have been the same even had it been brought in negligence
(1981)
7
0005457856
Davis v Barking, Havering and Brentwood Health Authority 4 Medical Law Reports 85
(1993)
8
0005472044
A caudal anaesthetic is a type of epidural anaesthetic, which involves the insertion of a needle into the patient's lower back (at the level of the cleft of the buttocks) and the injection of local anaesthetic into just outside the tissues surrounding the spinal cord. It is most effective in the ano-genital region
9
0005416877
See reference 4: 90
10
0028861761
ABC of breast diseases: A fundamental problem of consent
The term "basic level" may appear counterintuitive since it refers to the level of usage rather than the level of classification. I am grateful to the anonymous reviewer for indicating this difficulty inherent in the terminology
Neurological deficits following epidural or spinal anesthesia
See, for example: Since a caudal block is a type of epidural the nature of the risks is similar. However, the probability of their eventuating is lower
It is recognised that the proposed model may have implications for those patients who do not want to know. This issue will need to be addressed and will form the subject of a future article
