Doris Clark Case
Doris
As Doris has refused medical treatment, the legal issue here is whether she has the capacity to refuse surgery on the grounds of her right to private autonomy1. In this case, Doris is refusing treatment on the basis that she does not want to lose her hair, which she takes great pride in, as it is important to her career. Although her reasons for refusal may seem irrational or incomprehensible to some, her right of refusal exists regardless2and therefore it cannot be assumed that she lacks capacity on this basis3. Hence, we must first presume that Doris has capacity to refuse the treatment unless shown otherwise4. The Act states that a person lacks capacity if she is unable to make a decision for herself because of an impairment of or disturbance in the function of the mind or brain5, and according to the NHS, a person’s brain or mind may be impaired due to brain damage. In this case, it is evident that Doris suffers temporary impairment in regards to weighing the information relevant to the decision6and communicating …show more content…
In other words, he must satisfy the Court that had he been warned of the risks or told of an alternative medication, he would not have been deprived of the opportunity to make a fully informed choice in regards to taking the medication at a later date43, and the injury would not have occurred. Elgin must prove that his injury is the materialisation of the negligently undisclosed risk and the damage sustained has made him worse off than he would have been if he had not taken the medication at that point in time44. The test of materiality is whether a reasonable person in the patient’s position would be likely to attach significance to the risk, or that the doctor should be reasonably aware that the particular patient would be likely to attach significance to
As Doris has refused medical treatment, the legal issue here is whether she has the capacity to refuse surgery on the grounds of her right to private autonomy1. In this case, Doris is refusing treatment on the basis that she does not want to lose her hair, which she takes great pride in, as it is important to her career. Although her reasons for refusal may seem irrational or incomprehensible to some, her right of refusal exists regardless2and therefore it cannot be assumed that she lacks capacity on this basis3. Hence, we must first presume that Doris has capacity to refuse the treatment unless shown otherwise4. The Act states that a person lacks capacity if she is unable to make a decision for herself because of an impairment of or disturbance in the function of the mind or brain5, and according to the NHS, a person’s brain or mind may be impaired due to brain damage. In this case, it is evident that Doris suffers temporary impairment in regards to weighing the information relevant to the decision6and communicating …show more content…
In other words, he must satisfy the Court that had he been warned of the risks or told of an alternative medication, he would not have been deprived of the opportunity to make a fully informed choice in regards to taking the medication at a later date43, and the injury would not have occurred. Elgin must prove that his injury is the materialisation of the negligently undisclosed risk and the damage sustained has made him worse off than he would have been if he had not taken the medication at that point in time44. The test of materiality is whether a reasonable person in the patient’s position would be likely to attach significance to the risk, or that the doctor should be reasonably aware that the particular patient would be likely to attach significance to