This is a medical law problem question

0 Comment

She breached that duty of care by acting in a manner inconsistent with the reasonable standard of care which caused Paulo to suffer injury as a result of her breach of the duty of care. She knows that it is mandatory to obtain the valid consent of the patient before any medical or surgical treatment is performed on the patient. Hence, she must also be made liable for the damages, together with the doctor for the injury sustained by Paulo. The hospital also has a vicarious liability for the tort of battery and negligence committed by their doctor and nurse. As their employers, the hospital can be sued in the event their employees cannot compensate Paulo for the damage caused to him. Under the law, Paulo has the right to sue the hospital, and in return, the hospital has the obligation to compensate Paulo for the unsafe medical practice committed against him. Paulo should also file a case for negligence and damages against Doc Torr for his failure to warn him of the risks and side-effects of the surgical treatment before the actual operation. Clearly, there was a breach of duty on the part of the doctor for failure to inform his patient that there is a 0.5% possibility that he will lose his voice. Such material fact should be made known to the patient since the doctor knows that the patient is an opera singer by profession. Paulo has the right to request for his health record, which consists of information relating to the physical or mental health or condition of an individual made by a health professional in connection to his care( BMA Ethics). Before a medical practitioner examines and/or treats a patient, a valid consent must be given by the patient. If the said doctor proceeds with the examination without obtaining consent from the patient, whether express or implied, and done against that person’s will and without any statutory authority to do so, that surgeon may incur civil liability for violation of the tort of trespass against the person and criminal liability in accordance with the provisions of Offences Against the Person Act of 1861. The truth is that most cases covered by this area are brought about due to negligence as the cause of action in the tort or damage committed by the doctor. However, in order for the action to prosper, the claimant must show proof that a valid consent from the patient to allow the medical treatment was absent. In this case, no valid consent was obtained by Dr. Torr from his patient Paulo. Thus, the doctor is liable for negligence. The term consent was best described in the case of Cardozo J, Schoelendorff v New York Hospital which provides: Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body.1 While in the case of F V West Berkshire Health Authority, Lord Goff has stated that: Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body. 2 In the case at bar, Paulo is an adult who has the capacity to give consent to the medical treatment that will be done to his own body. The requirement of consent to treatment reflects the basic right to self-determination. The act of Doc Torr makes him liable for two things: 1.) Failure to obtain a valid consent from his client. and 2.)Non-disclosure of the vital information of inherent risk