Sidaway v Bethlem Royal Hospital [1985] AC 471

House of Lords

Basic Facts: C had a surgery to alleviate long-standing pain. Despite minimal risks and careful execution, the surgery caused severe disability. C claimed that the doctor failed to warn her of potential risks.

Issue for the Court: Does a patient have a legal right to be informed of all risks inherent in a recommended treatment?

Held: The plaintiff's appeal was dismissed because she could not demonstrate that the surgeon breached his duty to warn her about the inherent risks of the treatment. The Court of Appeal's decision was upheld. The House of Lords ruled that a doctor's duty to inform a patient about the risks of treatment is generally determined by the Bolam test. However, exceptions exist, especially when the treatment involves significant risks, where a judge might find non-disclosure negligent only in specific situations like emergencies or with valid clinical reasons.

• Lord Scarman (dismissing the appeal): Warning about risks is a matter of medical judgment, and Bolam principle applies. There is no doctrine of informed consent in English law akin to U.S. standards. Doctors are not negligent if they follow accepted medical practice, though they should exercise care in respecting the patient's right to make informed decisions.

  Lord Bridge of Harwich (dismissing the appeal): Specialists should be held to the standard of skill they profess, but there is no need to disclose all risks. A balanced approach should be taken to ensure patients are informed of material risks.

💡Levelup : This case emphasizes the duty of medical practitioners to fully inform patients about the risks of surgeries, ensuring that patients give informed consent.