翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ Rei Okamoto
・ Rei Omishi
・ Rei Rei
・ Rei Sakuma
・ Rei Shimura
・ Rei Toei
・ Rei Ujkashi
・ Rei vindicatio
・ Rei Yoshii
・ Reia
・ Reia (programming language)
・ Reial Acadèmia Catalana de Belles Arts de Sant Jordi
・ Reibekuchen
・ Reibel machine gun
・ Reiber
Reibl v Hughes
・ Reibold Building
・ Reica Staiger
・ Reice Charles-Cook
・ Reice Hamel
・ Reich
・ Reich & sexy
・ Reich & Tang Asset Management
・ Reich (disambiguation)
・ Reich (video game)
・ Reich Bride Schools
・ Reich Central Office for the Combating of Homosexuality and Abortion
・ Reich Chancellery
・ Reich Chancellery meeting of 12 December 1941
・ Reich Commissioner for the Consolidation of German Nationhood


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

Reibl v Hughes : ウィキペディア英語版
Reibl v Hughes

''Reibl v Hughes'' () 2 S.C.R. 880 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on negligence, medical malpractice, informed consent, the duty to warn, and causation.
The case settled the issue of when a physician may be sued for battery and when it is more appropriate to sue the doctor in negligence. The Court wrote unanimously that "unless there has been misrepresentation or fraud to secure consent to the treatment, a failure to disclose the attendant risks, however serious, should go to negligence rather than to battery." The case also marked the creation of a standard whereby a physician must give the patient sufficient information so that an objective, reasonable person in the patient's position would be able to make an informed choice about a medical procedure.
==Background==
Robert A. Hughes, a physician, was in the process of competently performing an endarterectomy on his patient, John Reibl, when Reibl suffered a massive stroke. Paralysis and impotence resulted. Reibl alleged that he had not truly given informed consent, and as such the surgery constituted battery.〔(), Reibl v. Hughes Court Ruling〕 Although Reibl was aware that the surgery was not without risks, he felt that Hughes had implied that the risks of not having the surgery were greater. Reibl was eighteen months away from obtaining a lifetime pension, and the stroke prevented him from earning that pension. He stated that if he had been aware of the risks in the surgery, he would have waited the year and a half to earn his pension before undergoing the procedure, even if it meant a shortened life.
In the original trial, Reibl was awarded monetary damages for negligence and battery, irrespective of his having signed a formal consent form. On appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal, the court directed that a new trial be held, but that the charge of battery be disallowed from the new proceedings.

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「Reibl v Hughes」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.