Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 8 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 2698 ..

. Also, health carers sometimes find themselves in situations which raise legal questions they find difficult to answer, such as:

- what matters can properly be considered `emergencies'?

- when and by whom consent is required when patients are unable to consent themselves?

- what should one do when there is dissent among family members? and

- under what circumstances should the Community Advocate be consulted?

. Added to this principle and causing further complexity is the recently adopted legal dictum that all medical treatment requires `informed consent', otherwise this may lead to an action in negligence. `Informed consent' requires an understanding of more than just the nature of a medical procedure, but other matters such as the effects of the procedure and any risks which it poses.

. The law in relation to informed consent to medical treatment was recently reviewed by the Australian High Court in Rogers v Whitaker, the judgement of which was released on 19 November 1992. The High Court rejected the long-held English principle that the standard of care imposed on a doctor by law is in fact a matter of medical judgment when it comes to giving the patient information.

. It stated that determination of what to tell a patient is not to be made on medical judgment alone. Doctors must take into consideration the patient's right to know the risks involved in medical treatment, and it is thus ultimately a legal question to be decided on the facts of the particular case.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .