The duty of risk disclosure in medical treatment contracts is examined first through comparison with securities exchange contracts, second, by examining the contract as dealt in judicial precedent, ensued by an analysis and proposal by the author. In both types of contracts, the number of judicial judgments finding for the plaintiff based solely on violation of the duty of risk disclosure is increasing. Different explanations, however, should apply for the increase. In the case of the securities exchange contracts, the duty to inform is understood as a means of providing material for informed choice and self-determination, thus supporting the argument for self-discipline. Whereas, in the case of medical treatment contracts, adding to the argument for self-determination, another line of reasoning is given: disclosure of relevant information as a means by which the medical services secure the life and physical well-being of the patient. The reason the principle of self-determination is not in full play is analyzed as a case in which higher norms of the professional ethics of the medical staff is functioning. Thus, in providing medical information of possible treatments to the patient, the physician is exonerated from legal liability, but remains burdened with the ethical responsibility to provide appropriate care. As the overlap of the two types of responsibility seems not to be fully realized, further investigation and dissemination of findings of this issue is proposed.
|Number of pages||7|
|Journal||Nagoya journal of medical science|
|Publication status||Published - 02-2009|
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes