Supreme
Court of
51
Cal.3d 120, 793 P.2d 479, 271 Cal.Rptr. 146.
Prosser,
pp. 188-191
Facts: The plaintiff went in for
treatment of leukemia. The defendant
used cells from his spleen for profit.
The plaintiff sued for a bunch of stuff including conversion of his
spleen cells, lack of informed consent, and breach of fiduciary[1]
duty.
Issue: Does a physician have a
duty to inform the patient of his economic interest in a particular course of
treatment?
Rule: A physician must tell the
patient if he has personal interests that may affect his professional
judgment. If he fails to do so, he may
be liable for malpractice based on breach of informed consent.
Analysis: The court uses three
principles:
1. An adult has
the right to control his own body.
2. Consent is
only effective if it is informed consent.
3. The doctor
must tell you about everything that is material to your decision to give
consent.
Thus,
a doctor, in getting your informed consent, must tell you about all of his
interests that may affect his judgment, or else he may be liable for performing
medical procedures without informed consent.
There
is a competing interest in withholding information if giving the information
would make a patient make a bad choice. However,
the court feels that this applies only in cases where the doctor is acting solely
in the patient’s best interests. The court
finds that this is not the case here.
Conclusion: A bunch of stuff happens,
but essentially the court rules that there must be a consideration of the
merits of the causes of action for lack of informed consent and breach of
fiduciary duty on the part of the doctor who took the spleen.
[1] A duty of utmost good faith, trust, confidence, and candor owed by a fiduciary (such as a lawyer or corporate officer) to the beneficiary (such as a lawyer's client or a shareholder); a duty to act with the highest degree of honesty and loyalty toward another person and in the best interests of the other person (such as the duty that one partner owes to another). Black’s 7th.