- Published on
Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital
and the Maudsley Hospital(1985): The doctor may claim
‘therapeutic privilege’ and withhold information that would cause the
patient harm or be contrary to his best interests
Facts
See above.
Decision
Lord Scarman argued (obiter) that in raising therapeutic privilege the doctor must
prove ‘that he reasonably believed that the disclosure of the risk would be damaging to
his patient or contrary to his best interests’.
Comment
In the earlier case Hatcher v Black (1954), it was argued that anxiety increases the risks
of thyroidectomy and as such it was justifiable to withhold information from
the patient to prevent her becoming more anxious. As far as English law is concerned,
the privilege is not explicit but may be implicitly justifiable under the professional
standard of care. The term therapeutic privilege comes from the US and was discussed
in the US case of Canterbury v Spence (1972), in which the court held that the doctor
may withhold information if disclosing it would risk making the patient so distraught
that he is incapable of making a decision.
and the Maudsley Hospital(1985): The doctor may claim
‘therapeutic privilege’ and withhold information that would cause the
patient harm or be contrary to his best interests
Facts
See above.
Decision
Lord Scarman argued (obiter) that in raising therapeutic privilege the doctor must
prove ‘that he reasonably believed that the disclosure of the risk would be damaging to
his patient or contrary to his best interests’.
Comment
In the earlier case Hatcher v Black (1954), it was argued that anxiety increases the risks
of thyroidectomy and as such it was justifiable to withhold information from
the patient to prevent her becoming more anxious. As far as English law is concerned,
the privilege is not explicit but may be implicitly justifiable under the professional
standard of care. The term therapeutic privilege comes from the US and was discussed
in the US case of Canterbury v Spence (1972), in which the court held that the doctor
may withhold information if disclosing it would risk making the patient so distraught
that he is incapable of making a decision.
0 Comments