Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital

Definition

Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital is a landmark legal case from 1914 that established the principle of informed consent in medical procedures. The case arose when a woman, Mary Schloendorff, underwent surgery without being fully informed about the nature of the procedure or the risks involved. This case highlights the importance of patient autonomy and the necessity for healthcare providers to obtain consent from patients before administering treatment.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The Schloendorff case set a precedent for the legal requirement of informed consent in medical procedures, which is now a fundamental principle in healthcare.
2. Mary Schloendorff was subjected to surgery for a fibroid tumor without her consent; she had explicitly stated she did not want surgery unless it was necessary.
3. The ruling emphasized that a surgeon must respect a patient's wishes and autonomy, highlighting the ethical obligation to provide full disclosure before treatment.
4. The case established that consent must be obtained voluntarily and without coercion, paving the way for future legal cases related to patient rights.
5. Following this case, informed consent became a standard practice in hospitals across the United States, shaping how patient care is approached.

Review Questions

• How did the Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital case influence the concept of informed consent in modern healthcare?
  • The Schloendorff case significantly influenced modern healthcare by establishing the necessity for informed consent as a fundamental principle. It underscored that patients must be fully informed about their medical treatments and have the right to make decisions regarding their care. This ruling has shaped policies and practices within healthcare institutions, ensuring that patient autonomy is respected and upheld.
• Discuss the implications of patient autonomy as highlighted in the Schloendorff case and how it relates to contemporary medical ethics.
  • The implications of patient autonomy highlighted in the Schloendorff case are profound in contemporary medical ethics. The ruling reinforced the idea that patients have the right to control what happens to their bodies and make informed choices about their treatments. This aligns with current ethical standards that prioritize respect for individuals’ rights, requiring healthcare providers to facilitate shared decision-making processes with their patients.
• Evaluate the ongoing relevance of Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital in today’s discussions around medical malpractice and patient rights.
  • The ongoing relevance of Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital is evident in today's discussions surrounding medical malpractice and patient rights. As legal precedents continue to evolve, the emphasis on informed consent remains crucial in malpractice cases where failure to obtain proper consent can lead to legal consequences for healthcare providers. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of respecting patient autonomy, ensuring that healthcare professionals remain accountable for obtaining informed consent as part of ethical practice.

Related terms

Informed Consent: A legal and ethical obligation for healthcare providers to provide patients with comprehensive information about the risks, benefits, and alternatives to a proposed treatment or procedure, allowing them to make an informed decision.

Autonomy: The right of individuals to make decisions about their own lives and bodies, particularly in healthcare settings, emphasizing the importance of personal choice and self-determination.

Medical Malpractice: A legal term referring to professional negligence by a healthcare provider that results in harm to a patient, often involving failure to obtain informed consent or adhere to accepted standards of care.