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....(short extract)
To download the full answer, please Sign in or Register then make a payment or submit 3 of your essays.
- Subject: Law
- Course: Medical Law
- Level: Degree
- Year: 2nd/3rd
- Mark: 71%
- Words: 4732
- Date submitted: February 10, 2009
- Date written: January, 2006
- References: Yes
- Document type: Essay*
- Essay ID: 737
