Introduction “Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body” 1 Cardozo J in Schloendorff v Society of New York Hospital
“It would be unrealistic to suppose the principle here affirmed will not over time be the subject of incremental and analogical development. At the very least this case shows that where justice and policy demand it a modification of causation principles is not beyond the wit of a modern court. The right of autonomy and dignity can and ought to be vindicated by a narrow and modest departure from traditional causation principles. A result which he deemed to be in accord with one of the most basic aspirations of the law, namely to right wrongs”. 2 Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral services ltd per Lord Bingham and Lord Steyn. …show more content…
Up until quite recently, the signal from the English courts on this issue was the only approach to be applied was the doctor centered approach. This can be seen from decisions from Bolam and Sidaway. However the landmark decision of Chester v Afshar seemed to change this as the court favoured a patient centered approach over the doctor centered approach. While confusion did exist after this case, a subsequent Scottish decision reaffirmed the Chester principle and it will be interesting to see what approach the English courts will take in the future when faced with similar cases. In the meantime, it’s fair to say that the doctor centered approach as advocated by Sidaway remains the most favourable approach in England. However the law appears to be shrouded in mystery in light of the Chester and Montgomery decisions. ( While Chester signal the death of Bolam, Mongromery was only the belated
“It would be unrealistic to suppose the principle here affirmed will not over time be the subject of incremental and analogical development. At the very least this case shows that where justice and policy demand it a modification of causation principles is not beyond the wit of a modern court. The right of autonomy and dignity can and ought to be vindicated by a narrow and modest departure from traditional causation principles. A result which he deemed to be in accord with one of the most basic aspirations of the law, namely to right wrongs”. 2 Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral services ltd per Lord Bingham and Lord Steyn. …show more content…
Up until quite recently, the signal from the English courts on this issue was the only approach to be applied was the doctor centered approach. This can be seen from decisions from Bolam and Sidaway. However the landmark decision of Chester v Afshar seemed to change this as the court favoured a patient centered approach over the doctor centered approach. While confusion did exist after this case, a subsequent Scottish decision reaffirmed the Chester principle and it will be interesting to see what approach the English courts will take in the future when faced with similar cases. In the meantime, it’s fair to say that the doctor centered approach as advocated by Sidaway remains the most favourable approach in England. However the law appears to be shrouded in mystery in light of the Chester and Montgomery decisions. ( While Chester signal the death of Bolam, Mongromery was only the belated