Informed Consent in Louisiana: Lugenbuhl v. Dowling

Introduction

In medicine, we see permanent differences between rights to rights of patients to make independent decisions and overarching goals of physicians of preserving personal wellbeing of his/her patient. Few decades ago there was a standard policy that states that physicians are not required to obtain informed consent of their patients because it was believed that physicians from their experience can make best decisions for their patients but in 1990s, the standard views of people started to change as people started to realize that physicians always may not know the best option for the patient (Greenfield, 520). Even if they do, patients may not necessarily choose this option. In several cases patients refuse to use certain procedure chosen by physicians. To better understand the significance of information consent in this paper we are going to introduce the case of Lugenbuhl & Dowling.

Question # 1

In the case of Lugenbuhl v Dowling, a surgeon after obtaining the consent from patient used surgical mesh though he the surgeon promised the patient that he will not but still he did, the surgeon changed his mind during the operation, he thought that things will work out but it did not and the patient sued him based on the lack of informed consent. The patient has problem of intracostal incisional hernia. Throughout this case the claims have been separated into medical malpractice and lack of informed consent claims. The plaintiff has failed to satisfy the important element of causation in fact based on complete record. There was no medical that could have forced the court to conclude that the defendant failure to use mesh has caused subsequent massive herniation to the plaintiff. According to medical evidence, Dr. Dowling did not violate any standard of care and the case was entirely in his favor (Lugenbuhl v Dowling, 6).

Question # 2

The patient was the plaintiff

A general surgeon named as Dr. John Dowling who was the defendant.

The case took place on 10th October, 1997.

The case was filed in the Supreme Court of Louisiana

According to the research a patient should not be misled because in result to it unanticipated circumstances can arise as it raised in case of Lugenbuhl & Dowling.

Question # 3

In medicine informed consent is an old concept; it is a legal process to ensure that client, patient, and research participant are aware of all the potential costs and risks involved in a process or treatment. The elements of informed consent include possible alternative treatments, potential benefits, and risks of the treatment, and informing the client of treatment nature. In the case of minors or unable to give consent, this will be given by his legal representative. Informed consent is an important doctrine because it provides patients with an opportunity to be an informed participant in his/her healthcare decisions (Levinson, 553). In other words, it is an important doctrine because it helps physicians to make significant decisions. The law suggests that informed consent is valid when the ...