This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-12-07 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Court Alright. This titanium materials according to you were already available in the Philippines since the time of Rosit's accident? Witness Yes, your Honor. x x x x Court Did you inform Rosit about the existence of titanium screws and plates which according to you is the screws and plates of choice? Witness No, your Honor. x x x x Witness The reason I did not inform him anymore Judge because what I thought he was already hard up with the down payment. And if I will further introduce him this screws, the more he will not be able to afford the operation. x x x x Court This titanium screws and plates were available then it is up to Rosit to decide whether to use it or not because after all the material you are using is paid by the patient himscll, is it not? Witness Yes, that is true. Li v. Soliman[17] made the following disquisition on the relevant Doctrine of Informed Consent in relation to medical negligence cases, to wit:The doctrine of informed consent within the context of physician-patient relationships goes far back into English common law. x x x From a purely ethical norm, informed consent evolved into a general principle of law that a physician has a duty to disclose what a reasonably prudent physician in the medical community in the exercise of reasonable care would disclose to his patient as to whatever grave risks of injury might be incurred from a proposed course of treatment, so that a patient, exercising ordinary care for his own welfare, and faced with a choice of undergoing the proposed treatment, or alternative treatment, or none at all, may intelligently exercise his judgment by reasonably balancing the probable risks against the probable benefits. | |||||
|
2014-09-29 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| "[M]edical malpractice or, more appropriately, medical negligence, is that type of claim which a victim has available to him or her to redress a wrong committed by a medical professional which has caused bodily harm." In order to successfully pursue such a claim, a patient, or his or her family as in this case, "must prove that a health care provider, in most cases a physician, either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent health care provider would have done, or that he or she did something that a reasonably prudent provider would not have done; and that failure or action caused injury to the patient."[27] | |||||
|
2014-04-14 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The doctrine of informed consent was introduced in this jurisdiction only very recently in Dr. Li v. Spouses Soliman.[59] This court ruled that liability may arise in cases where the physician fails to obtain the consent of the patient before performing any medical procedure, thus: The doctrine of informed consent within the context of physician-patient relationships goes far back into English common law. As early as 1767, doctors were charged with the tort of "battery" (i.e., an unauthorized physical contact with a patient) if they had not gained the consent of their patients prior to performing a surgery or procedure. In the United States, the seminal case was Schoendorff v. Society of New York Hospital which involved unwanted treatment performed by a doctor. Justice Benjamin Cardozo's oft-quoted opinion upheld the basic right of a patient to give consent to any medical procedure or treatment: "Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient's consent, commits an assault, for which he is liable in damages." From a purely ethical norm, informed consent evolved into a general principle of law that a physician has a duty to disclose what a reasonably prudent physician in the medical community in the exercise of reasonable care would disclose to his patient as to whatever grave risks of injury might be incurred from a proposed course of treatment, so that a patient, exercising ordinary care for his own welfare, and faced with a choice of undergoing the proposed treatment, or alternative treatment, or none at all, may intelligently exercise his judgment by reasonably balancing the probable risks against the probable benefits. | |||||