Refer to assignment criteria Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Refer to assignment criteria - Essay Example On one hand, the law stipulates that it is the duty of health care providers to give information to their patients when obtaining consent and also warn them of any possible risks that are likely to be encountered during the treatment or medical procedure. On the other hand, the quantity of information to disclose, and the truthfulness of that information is also a factor to consider as much as a health care provider is required to give out information to patients. The statement under scrutiny in this paper can be dissected in a myriad of ways. It is imperative to point out that in relation to the law in England and Wales, it is the duty of health care providers to care for their patients. This was clearly stated by the House of Lords by Lord Diplock in the Sidaway v Bethlem Royal Hospital case of 1985. According to Lord Diplock, â€Å"A single comprehensive duty covering all the ways in which you are called on to exercise skill and judgment in the improvement of the physical and men tal condition of the patient.† (Sidaway v Bethlem Royal Hospital 1985). The law in England and Wales also clearly stipulates that it is the duty of the health care provider, while caring for a patient, to clearly advice a patient and disclose all pertinent information that will permit the patient to come up with good decisions based on the nature of care being given (Hills v Potter 1983). However, the law is not quite clear on the distinction that should exist between therapeutic and non-therapeutic contexts. Most of the famous cases that are related to the topic in question reveal just how difficult it is for one to know just how much information to reveal to a patient. This difficulty arises from the fact that it is not very clear whether very inquisitive and curious patients should be told more than needs to be told. Another issue that causes this difficulty lies in the fact that the law is not comprehensible on whether the health care provider has the discretion to distort or withhold information. Lastly, the issue of therapeutic and non-therapeutic circumstances mentioned above also contributes to the difficulty in knowing just how much information to reveal to a patient. A review of the Hatcher v Black case of 1954 can explain this point further. In the case, the patient consented to partial thyroidectomy proposed by the doctor. The patient was not made aware of the slight risks that could have her voice permanently impaired. In fact, the facts of the case reveal that the patient was told that there were no risks at all. After the operation, her vocal cord became paralysed. In the summary given to the jury by Lord Denning, the pertinent question of what a doctor should tell a patient was very conspicuous. The doctor admitted that despite knowing the slight risk that existed, he told the patient before the procedure that there was no risk. The doctor was quick to add that he did this for the patient’s own good. The doctor did not want to have his patient worry because this would be detrimental to her overall wellbeing. In fact, the doctor said that the circumstances under which he did this were justifiable. The issue that arises here is that law does not say that the doctor was wrong in doing what he did under such circumstances. Several doctors were called as witnesses, and none of them felt that the doctor was wrong in what he did under the given circumstances. For these reasons, Lord Denning saw no reason to condemn the doctor (Hatcher v