Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Medical Liability”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 991 records · Page 55Linked to original sources
PubMedDate not supplied

Inserting IUDs safely.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Ambulatory Care Facilities↗
PubMed1988

Jacks v. Dunnett, 4 November 1987.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, awarded general damages of $8000 in a medical malpractice case involving the insertion of an IUD into a woman while another IUD was already in place. It held that it was not necessary to demonstrate how much of the woman's suffering was attributable to the malpractice, because, in all probability, the negligence of the physician had increased the risk of side effects that might result from irritation from the first IUD. The woman in this case had suffered intermittently for two years and eight months after the insertion of the second IUD.

Americas↗
PubMed1988

R. v. Sullivan and Lemay, 28 July 1988.

causing death in violation of Section 203 of the Criminal Code, after they delivered a baby who was born dead. On appeal, the Court of Appeal of British Columbia reversed this conviction. It held that they could not be convicted because at common law a child not completely born was not considered a person, and the act of causing the death of a fetus was not homicide. The Court did, however, enter a conviction on the charge of criminal negligence causing bodily harm with respect to the mother of the child. It ruled that, at the time of its death, the fetus was part of the mother.

Americas↗
PubMed1988

Petrunic and Anor. v. Barnes, 1 February 1988.

The defendant physician was charged with negligence and breach of contract in the performance of a tubal ligation on the plaintiff. After the plaintiff became pregnant and gave birth to twins, she and her husband sought damages for pecuniary losses resulting from the birth of twins, claiming that the defendant should have warned them of the risk of failure of the operation or mentioned the alternative of performance of a vasectomy on the husband. The Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia, held that the defendant had no duty to inform the plaintiffs of the risk of failure or the alternative of a vasectomy since his actions accorded with accepted practice within the profession. It also concluded that, even if he had warned the plaintiffs, they would not have withheld their consent to the operation.

Australia↗
PubMed1988

Judgment, 11 October 1988.

The Supreme Court of France reversed a lower court ruling dismissing the suit of a woman who sought damages resulting from an unauthorized tubal ligation. The ligation had been performed without her consent following a Cesarean Section. The physician contended that, if he had sought her consent prior to the operation, it would have been unreasonable for her to refuse given the risk of a ruptured uterus if she became pregnant again. The Court held that a physician may not operate on a patient without that patient's free and informed consent except in cases of evident necessity or immediate danger. It concluded that neither of these existed here.

Cesarean Section↗
PubMed1988

Judgment, 29 January 1988.

The issue before the State Council of France was whether the damages judgment of 20,000 francs set by the lower court for the sterilization (tubal ligation) of the applicant without her consent should be raised. The State Council first noted that the seriousness of the distress suffered by the applicant was mitigated by the possibility of undergoing an operation that would reverse her sterility and by the fact that she had five children. It also noted that the significance of her distress was increased given her young age at the time of the intervention and the mental distress and the family difficulties that she experienced. It increased the damages to 50,000 francs.

Behavior↗
PubMed1988

Edouard v. Administrator, Natal, 22 November 1988.

The plaintiff husband sued the defendant health authority for breach of contract. The defendant had entered into a contract with the plaintiff's wife to sterilize her so that the couple would not have a child that they could not support. Despite the operation, the wife gave birth a year later. The Supreme Court of South Africa allowed recovery of damages for the cost of maintaining and supporting the child but not for the discomfort, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities of life suffered by the wife. It suggested that, if there is a need for recovery of such damages, they should be recovered under a tort theory rather than breach of contract.

Africa↗
PubMed1988

Jones v. Berkshire Area Health Authority, 2 July 1986.

The High Court of the UK awarded 40,000 pounds in damages to the plaintiff, who, after being sterilized, had given birth to a child. The award included damages for anguish and distress and the cost of raising the child.

Behavior↗
PubMed1988

Worster v. City and Hackney Area Health Authority, 19 June 1987.

After undergoing a sterilization at the defendant Health Authority, the plaintiff gave birth to a son. She sought damages from the defendant charging negligence in its failure to warn her that there was a small possibility that the sterilization would not be successful. Specifically, she argued that her signing of a consent form containing the acknowledgement that the sterilization could not be reversed amounted to a representation that she could have no more children and that this representation was made negligently since there was no qualification about lack of success. The High Court of the UK rejected this argument, holding that the consent form was not a representation that sterilization was certain, but merely consent to the operation with an acknowledgement that the intended effect was that she and her husband have no more children.

Demography↗
PubMed1988

Dohn v. Lovell, 3 June 1988.

The Court held that language in the Georgia Voluntary Sterilization Act requiring "a full and reasonable medical explanation" to be given to a person wishing to be sterilized "as to the meaning and consequences" of the operation necessarily requires that the explanation be given as to the method to be employed. It rejected the argument of physicians in a medical malpractice suit that they needed to give an explanation only of the intended results of sterilization and that they could not be sued for medical malpractice unless they had been negligent in performing the actual sterilization.

Ambulatory Care Facilities↗
PubMed1988

Judgment, 7 July 1987.

The plaintiff was a pregnant woman just under the age of 36 who consulted her physician on having an amniocentesis performed because of her age. Her physician advised her against this, emphasizing the danger to the fetus and the fact that she had just had a healthy child and that her present pregnancy was progressing well. When the plaintiff subsequently gave birth to a child suffering from Down's syndrome, she sued the physician for maintenance of the child claiming that she would have had an abortion had she known that the child was defective. The Federal Court of the Federal Republic of Germany reversed the decision of the lower court and dismissed her claim. It held that she had not proved that she had been inadequately counselled by the defendant since he had counselled her about the dangers of Down's syndrome during her previous pregnancy sufficiently for her to have obtained a second opinion about having the amniocentesis performed and since it was standard practice not to perform an amniocentesis on women who were under the age of 36.

Abortion, Induced↗
PubMed1988

Judgment, 28 July 1988.

The High Regional Court at Dusseldorf, Federal Republic of Germany, held that a physician is required to provide advice to a patient about age-related risks in pregnancy, including advice on possible birth defects and tests that can help the patient decide whether to continue the pregnancy. The physician also must not oversimplify explanations of risks or overemphasize the dangers involved in amniocentesis. The Court ruled that a physician was negligent in giving advice when he, in fact, dissuaded a patient over the age of 40 from undergoing amniocentesis, with the result that she gave birth to a child suffering from Down's syndrome. It ordered him to pay support for the child.

Age Factors↗
PubMed1988

Judgment, 6 May 1988.

The plaintiff brought a suit against the defendant physician for reckless homicide under the German Penal Code. She accused him of negligence in failing to induce labor when she entered the hospital, with the result that her unborn child died approximately 1 week later. The Court dismissed the suit, ruling that a fetus could not be protected under the reckless homicide provisions of the Penal Code. It concluded that it was up to the legislators to provide protection for the fetus in such circumstances.

Demography↗
PubMed1988

Judgment, 8 November 1988.

The Federal Court of the Federal Republic of Germany held that a medically unnecessary delay in performing an amniocentesis to test for chromosomal damage, with the result that a second necessary amniocentesis could not be performed before the time limit for undergoing an abortion expired, constituted medical negligence. The first amniocentesis had produced inconclusive results, and the plaintiff had given birth to a child suffering from Down's syndrome. The Court ruled that the physician who had caused the delay was negligent and remanded the case for determination of damages.

Amniocentesis↗