Question: The decision in Chester v Afshar 2004 UKHL 41 can be interpreted to mean both that a claimant can ignore the traditional rules of causation in a clinical negligence case and that the Bolam test (Bolam v Friern HMC 1957 2 All ER 582) is no longer relevant in determining what a patient should be told regarding the risks of medical treatment.
Consider the accuracy of this statement.
Answer: Chester v Afshar (1) has influenced two main issues in medical law and those are; the departure from the traditional rules of causation and the extent of disclosure of information prior to obtaining a patient’s consent for treatment. I will consider both of these points in turn. First I need to consider the traditional rules of causation before moving on to an analysis of Chester v Afshar in this area. I will discuss causation in relation to disclosure of information and risks because this is what Chester v Afshar concerns. The only duty in medical negligence is the duty to care for the patient and this is divided into distinct parts, one of which is the duty to provide information. If a claimant contends that he was not warned about a risk in a procedure he will need to prove th......(short extract)
To download the full answer, please Sign in or Register then make a payment or submit coursework.
Details: - Mark: 64% | Course: Medical Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 4734 | References: Yes | Date written: March, 2006 | Date submitted: October 20, 2008 | Coursework ID: 157
