Hello, CaseSnappy community! Today, our Decoding Judgments series transports us back to a critical moment in medical law history. We will embark on an enlightening exploration of tort law and patients' rights, unravelling the complex layers of Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital [1985] UKHL 1.
In the spotlight of our analysis is Mrs. Sidaway, who incurred spinal cord damage, resulting in paralysis, following spinal surgery recommended by the late Mr. Falconer, a neuro-surgeon. Mrs Sidaway claimed that she was not sufficiently warned about the risks of the procedure, a contention that called into question whether the surgeon's omission to warn of specific risks was negligent.
The landmark issue addressed in this case centred around informed consent — specifically, whether Mr. Falconer had breached his duty of care by failing to inform Mrs Sidaway of the potential risk to her spinal cord. The appellant argued her right to be informed of all pertinent risks, while the respondents maintained that the surgeon's omission adhered to a practice supported by a responsible body of neuro-surgeons.
The House of Lords dismissed the appeal, confirming that Mr Falconer's standard of care was in line with the Bolam test. Adopting a stance in line with established medical opinion, the judgement reaffirmed the applicability of the Bolam test in cases concerning medical advice regarding treatment risks. Lord Templeman clarified that a patient could not claim a lack of information unless they had unsuccessfully sought more information or there was a uniquely significant risk not communicated.
Lord Templeman wrote: 'In my opinion if a patient knows that a major operation may entail serious consequences, the patient cannot complain of lack of information unless the patient asks in vain for more information or unless there is some danger which by its nature or magnitude or for some other reason requires to be separately taken into account by the patient in order to reach a balanced judgment in deciding whether or not to submit to the operation.'
The Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital judgement marked a significant moment in medical law, bringing to light the complex nuances of informed consent and duty of care. The case underscored the significance of the Bolam test in medical negligence cases and highlighted the need for clear communication of substantial risks in patient care.
Proceeding in our Decoding Judgements series, please stay tuned as we dive deeper into case law's fascinating and dynamic depths. Remember, becoming a CaseSnappy member is free and your direct access to uncomplicating the ever-evolving world of case law!