Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T00:38:31.712Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Disclosure of Injury and Illness: Responsibilities in the Physician-Patient Relationship

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2021

Theodore R. LeBlang
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In one of his few decisions addressing the interface of law and medicine, Oliver Wendell Holmes observed that, The patient has no more right to all the truth than he has to all the medicine in the physician’s saddlebag. He should only get so much as is good for him.

During the last 60 or so years, the question of how much medical information is indeed good for the patient has been the subject of innumerable lawsuits. From this plethora of litigation, a clear common law trend which favors maximum disclosure of information has become evident. Relying upon the fiduciary nature of the physician-patient relationship, the courts have imposed upon the physician a duty to inform a patient fully regarding the condition of his or her body. It is appropriate, therefore, to examine various exemplary case decisions in an effort to portray effectively the nature and scope of the physician’s rights and responsibilities in this context.

Type
Article
Information
Law, Medicine and Healthcare , Volume 9 , Issue 5 , September 1981 , pp. 4 - 7
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

See Haney, & Colson, , Ethical Responsibility in Physician-Patient Communication, Ethics in Science and Medicine 7(1): 27, 34 (January 1980), citing Hollender, M. H., The Psychology of Medical Practice (Saunders, Philadelphia) (1958).Google Scholar
Truman v. Thomas, 611 P.2d 902 (Cal. 1980).Google Scholar
Id. at 906, citing Cobbs v. Grant, 502 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1972).Google Scholar
Jamison v. Lindsay, 166 Cal. Rptr. 443 (Cal. App. 1980).Google Scholar
Id. at 446, 447.Google Scholar
Ray v. Wagner, 176 N.W.2d 101 (Minn. 1970).Google Scholar
Id. at 103-04.Google Scholar
Gates v. Jenson, 595 P.2d 919 (Wash. 1979).Google Scholar
Id. at 922, citing Miller v. Kennedy, 522 P.2d 852 (1974), aff'd, 530 P.2d 334 (1975).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Betesh v. United Stales, 400 F. Supp. 238 (D.C. 1974).Google Scholar
Id. at 245.Google Scholar
Id. at 246.Google Scholar
Id. at 247.Google Scholar
O'Keefe v. United States, 490 F. Supp. 79 (Okla, W.D. 1980) (soldier not informed of tumor on pelvic bone discovered during treatment at V.A. hospital); James v. United States, 483 F. Supp. 581 (N.D. Cal. 1980) (apparent lung cancer, observable on pre-employment X-ray, not discovered due to clerical error). See also Keene v. Methodist Hosp., 324 F. Supp. 233 (N.D. Ind. 1971).Google Scholar
Hoover v. Williamson, 203 A.2d 861 (Md. App. 1964).Google Scholar
Id. at 863.Google Scholar
Testone v. Adams, 373 So.2d 362 (Fla. App. 1979).Google Scholar
Id. at 373.Google Scholar
Lynch v. Rubacky, 424 A.2d 1169 (N.J. 1981).Google Scholar
Garcia v. Presbyterian Hosp. Center, 593 P.2d 487 (N.M. Ct. App. 1979).Google Scholar
Id. at 490.Google Scholar
Id., citing Hardin v. Farris. 530 P.2d 407 (N.M. Ct. App. 1974) (emphasis added).Google Scholar
Witherell v. Warner, Nos. 52867, 52871 (Ill. Sup. Ct., Feb. 1981).Google Scholar
Id., slip. op. at 10.Google Scholar
Lopez v. Swyer, 279 A.2d 116 (App. Div. 1971), aff'd, 300 A.2d 563 (N.J. 1973).Google Scholar
Id., 279 A.2d at 124 (emphasis added).Google Scholar
Simcuski v. Saeli, 406 N.Y.S.2d 259 (N.Y. 1978).Google Scholar
Id. at 262. See also Mazza v. Winters, 230 A.2d 139 (N.J. App. 1967); and McCluskey v. Thranow, 142 N.W.2d 787 (Wisc. 1966).Google Scholar
State ex rel. Sperandio v. Clymer, 563 S.W2d 88 (Mo. App. Ct. 1978).Google Scholar
Id. at 91.Google Scholar
Johns-Manville Products Corp. v. Contra Costa Superior Court, 612 P.2d 948 (Cal. 1980).Google Scholar
Id. at 954, 955.Google Scholar