Question 1
In Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (D.D.C. 1972), one of the issues was a physician’s duty to disclose risks associated with surgery. The Court found that a jury should have had the opportunity to decide whether the physician accused of negligence had a duty to disclose a risk of which there was only 1% risk. What do you think of the Court’s ruling? At what threshold of risk do you think a physician should have to disclose the risk to a patient? How does this/should this duty of disclosure affect hospital policy? What implications does a physician’s duty of disclosure have for health care administrators?

Question 2
In Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 551 P.2d 334 (Cal. 1976)View in a new window. What precedent (prior case law authority) did the Court rely on in coming to its decision? Is the reporting requirement established in this case akin to the abuse reporting requirements discussed last week? How or how not? How is the duty to warn in tension with the duty of confidentiality? Can you think of a better way to lessen the tension?

Attachments:

• 1506179491-Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California 1.pdf