SEARCH · Search PubMed
Results for “Hopp v. Lepp”
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.
Tort--informed consent--new directions for medical disclosure--Hopp v. Lepp and Reibl v. Hughes.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Reibl v. Hughes: the consent issue.
Inviolability of the person is the basic principle underpinning the concept of consent to treatment. Although it is not a new concept, consent has become a major medico-legal issue because of a shift, within the doctor/patient relationship, towards more autonomy for the patient and less paternalism from the doctor. This change has been given further impetus by legal decisions such as Reibl v. Hughes and Hopp v. Lepp. In this paper the author reviews the nature of the changes and the impact of the legal decisions on the doctor/patient relationship. He concludes that a legal approach to consent is sterile if it is a substitute to open communication between the doctor and the patient, or to their acceptance of a principle of "equality of two participants". Consent is based on the basic principal of the inviolability of the person, that is, the right, at all times, of every individual not to have his body tampered with without his permission or agreement, and to be the whole decision-maker on matters that affect his physical integrity. This right is not absolute: it may be abrogated by the state for health or judicial reasons, or the person may not be in a position to exercise it, such as when unconscious or because of mental disability. This paper will review present Canadian laws on consent. It will contrast the legal approach to consent to the ethical-humanistic approach which could be developed within the context of the doctor/patient relationship.
Informed consent and the disclosure of risks of treatment: the Supreme Court of Canada decides.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Informed consent and ophthalmology in Canada.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Physicians and the minefield surrounding informed consent.
Most of the legal cases that follow the informed-consent standard set in recent court cases have involved surgical procedures. However, issues concerning a pregnant British Columbia mother who contracted chicken pox and whose child was subsequently born with severe medical complications demonstrate the complexity of medical decision making and the inadequacy of established legal requirements, especially when consent has dimensions beyond technical considerations usually associated with medical procedures. The problem physicians face, says lawyer Karen Capen, is to find a way to balance a range of professional responsibilities and the overriding fiduciary obligation to patients in matters associated with informed decision making and consent.