The case Canterbury v. Spence
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?
Canterbury v. Spence was a landmark federal case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that significantly reshaped malpractice law in the United States. Facts: Canterbury (plaintiff), a minor, went to Dr. Spence (defendant) in order to address his upper back pains. Following diagnosis, the defendant concluded that a laminectomy was required as the plaintiff already had a ruptured intervertebral disc. After going through with the procedure, which was initially successful, he fell out of bed while still in hospital, which caused paralysis and incontinence. As such, the plaintiff sued the defendant for malpractice, and one of his main contentions was that he had not been advised of the risk of paralysis. The lower court, however, dismissed the case in favor of the defendant for failure of the plaintiff to produce any witness that would establish his contention.
