SLP 2 Assignment: We Will Continue To Review Case Law

Slp 2assignment We Will Continue To Review Case Law As A Foundation F

SLP 2 ASSIGNMENT: We will continue to review Case law as a foundation for understanding various concepts necessary to understand the law in regard to health care administration. The Canterbury v. Spence case in the background materials dates to 1972, but is considered a “landmark” case in that it established the important concept of the “reasonable person” in regard to informed consent. As clearly explained, the lack of informed consent creates an environment where care providers can be held liable for negligence or torts against a patient. After reviewing the background readings and doing independent research, examine the case Canterbury v. Spence and answer the following: 1. Provide the background information regarding the case and the decision of the court. 2. Explain informed consent and its required elements. 3. What is the reasonable person standard? 4. Why is informed consent important in medical care? 5. What is the relationship between informed consent and ethics? Include a discussion of relevant ethical principles. 6. What is a hospital’s responsibility in insuring informed consent? Be sure to cite the peer-reviewed literature. 3 PAGES REQUIRED.

Paper For Above instruction

The landmark case of Canterbury v. Spence (1972) significantly shaped contemporary medical legal standards regarding informed consent and the ethical obligations of healthcare providers. This case set a precedent by establishing that patients must be adequately informed of the risks, benefits, and alternatives related to medical procedures, enabling autonomous decision-making. The case involved Douglas Canterbury, who underwent a lumbar spinal surgery performed by Dr. Spence without full disclosure of the potential risks. Postoperative complications resulted in paralysis, and Canterbury sued, asserting that he would have refused the procedure if adequately informed.

The court’s decision favored Canterbury, emphasizing that informed consent is a fundamental component of patient autonomy and ethical medical practice. The court held that the physician’s duty extends beyond mere disclosure of facts; it requires that the information is presented in a manner comprehensible to a reasonable person (Canterbury v. Spence, 1972). This decision underscored the importance of respecting patient autonomy within the context of healthcare and established the “reasonable person standard” as central to informed consent. The court articulated that physicians are responsible for ensuring that patients understand the nature of the proposed treatment, the associated risks, and available alternatives, thus enabling a decision aligned with the patient's values and preferences.

Informed consent encompasses several essential elements, including the disclosure of relevant information, understanding by the patient, voluntary agreement to proceed, and competence to make the decision. Disclosure involves providing clear information about the diagnosis, nature and purpose of the proposed interventions, risks and potential outcomes, and alternative options, including the option of no treatment (Showalter, 2017). The patient’s understanding is critical; it ensures that consent is truly informed rather than merely procedural.

The reasonable person standard, as reinforced in Canterbury v. Spence, refers to the benchmark by which the adequacy of information disclosure is judged. It compels healthcare providers to deliver information that an ordinary prudent person would find material in making a rational decision about their care (Sohn, 2013). This standard shifts the focus from the physician’s perspective to what an average person would consider significant, emphasizing patient-centered care and respecting individual differences in decision-making.

Informed consent is vital in medical care because it promotes respect for patient autonomy, fosters trust, and reduces the risk of legal liability for healthcare providers. Ethically, informed consent aligns with principles such as beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013). The ethical principle of respect for autonomy underpins the requirement that patients have the right to make informed decisions about their bodies and medical treatments. Beneficence and non-maleficence guide clinicians to act in the best interest of patients while minimizing harm, which is achieved through transparent communication and shared decision-making.

Ethical principles are intertwined with the concept of informed consent, reinforcing the accountability of healthcare professionals to uphold standards of honesty, transparency, and respect for individual rights. For instance, the principle of justice emphasizes fair access to information and equitable treatment, ensuring that all patients, regardless of socio-economic status or cultural background, receive comprehensible information to make autonomous choices. This ethical framework supports not only legal compliance but also the moral obligation of healthcare providers to respect and promote patient autonomy and dignity.

The responsibility of hospitals regarding informed consent extends beyond individual providers. Healthcare institutions must establish policies and educational programs that ensure staff are adequately trained in communication skills and ethical standards. Hospitals should develop standardized procedures to document informed consent, verify patient understanding, and provide ongoing training to maintain high ethical standards. Additionally, institutions are responsible for creating an environment that respects cultural differences and communicates effectively with diverse patient populations (Sohn, 2013). Providing accessible information materials, interpreter services, and patient education are essential components of a hospital’s responsibility to uphold informed consent ethically and legally.

References

• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Showalter, J. S. (2017). Consent. In J. S. Showalter (Ed.), The Law of Healthcare Administration (pp. 245–268). Health Administration Press.
• Sohn, D. (2013). Negligence, genuine error, and litigation. International Journal of General Medicine, 6, 49-56. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S41894
• Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972).
• Gamble, V. N. (1997). Building a human rights approach to health. Health and Human Rights, 2(2), 1-16.
• Brinkerhoff, D. W. (2003). Aligning organizational structures and incentives for ethical decision-making in healthcare. Medical Ethics Today, 20(4), 12-20.
• Faden, R. R., Beauchamp, T. L., & King, N. M. (1986). A History and Theory of Informed Consent. Oxford University Press.
• Oderda, G. M., & McGuire, M. (2013). Ethical considerations in informed consent. JAMA Internal Medicine, 173(10), 949–950.
• Shaw, D. (2010). Ethical principles of informed consent. Canadian Family Physician, 56(4), 347-349.
• Levine, A. (2014). Ethical dilemmas and decision-making in healthcare. Bioethics, 28(7), 368-374.