But the argument you said makes so sense. A patient comes into the ER unconscious. A doctor treats them without consent. I would personally bitch slap that patient if they sued.
The patient would win and has historically. You don't agree with it. It absolutely makes sense and is the law. It is the the patient's body; the only person who may do anything to it is a person with their consent, period. The unconscious stuff, you must have implied consent to what the reasonable patient would consent to if they were awake. The doctor goes that route at his own peril and if he is wrong, then it is his own cost. This has always been the law in the United States.
"It is the settled rule that therapy not authorized by the patient may amount to a tort-a common law battery-by the physician."
The tort of lack of informed consent is established when: (1) a physician fails to disclose and discuss material risks or dangers that are inherently associated with a proposed medical treatment or procedure; and (2) the undisclosed risk or danger actually materializes, and is the proximate cause of the patient's injury; if (3) a reasonable person would have declined the treatment or procedure in the event that the physician had properly apprised them of the potential risks involved. Nickell v. Gonzalez (1985), 17 Ohio.St.3d 136, syllabus.
This is not a medical malpractice case, nor is it a negligence case per se. The tort of lack of informed consent emanates from the common law tort of battery, which is an unconsented, offensive touching. See, e.g., Anderson v. St. Francis-St. George Hosp., Inc. (1996), 77 Ohio.St.3d 82, 84; cf. Canterbury v. Spence (C.A.D.C. 1972), 464 F.2d 772, 782-83 ("It is the settled rule that therapy not authorized by the patient may amount to a tort-a common law battery-by the physician."); W.E. Shipley, Annotation, Liability of Physician or Surgeon for Extending Operation or Treatment Beyond that Expressly Authorized (1957), 56 A.L.R.2d 695, Section 2.
It was for my uncle. Not all cancer is detected early. I mean if wasn't literally ER stuff, but he was unconscious the entire time until they removed it.
If your uncle did not consent and wanted to object, then he had a very valid lawsuit in my jurisdiction. I've had clients sue over this before. We usually win. I am a Licensed Practicing Attorney; not trying to be a jerk or anything but the law simply does not side with you. This is a very very valid legal cause of action and has been since the days of jolly old England.
What doesn't make sense is the alternative: they can do whatever the hell they want with you....
Vis-a-vis informed consent, Congress was informed and congress consented. Case closed.
How? No, they weren't. A congress of long ago created a law. The Fed complied with it.
This is insanely simple: "Hi guys, remember that law? In complying with it we're loaning out $7.7 Trillion. If we don't, we'll literally have another great depression." <---- This. This is what easily could've been given to Congress but was not. Did you see that video where they showed the guy on tape from the Fed and Treasury saying Congress wasn't told.
This is really simple, Congress was told if it was told. It was not told. Rather the Fed followed procedure without notice.
I am not saying it should not have been done necessarily. I'm saying that Congress, fully of idiots or not, should've been told so it could've been taken into consideration in future legislation like say:
The Dodd-Frank Reform Act.... <---- It would've really been a good argument for putting some regulations on these banks that they really do screw up sometimes.
Author
Topic: Occupying Wallstreet (Read 297211 times)