Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Courts as communicators: Can doctors learn from judges' decisions?

The doctor's question: ‘Will I be all right if I …?

  • Law Section
  • Published:
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The role of the courts in ‘communicating’ with those affected by their decisions is contentious. Some legal commentators maintain that courts and legislators are able to communicate decisions effectively and that attempts to ‘dumb down’ the law will not make such decisions more accessible to doctors and other professionals. Justice Michael Kirby, on the other hand, seems to share the present author's view that judges could improve their communication of their decisions to a wider audience: ‘In future, it seems inevitable that proceedings [of the High Court] will be broadcast live.Maybe one of the judges will explain the decisions of the court in simple terms as they are handed down… Adaptation to new ways and values is part of the genius of our law, although some of its practitioners need to be dragged kicking and screaming to accomplish the changes’

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kirby M. ‘Favourable verdict on the High Court’. Sunday Age, 5 Oct 2003.

  2. Rogers v Whitaker [1992] 175 CLR 479.

  3. Rosenberg v. Percival [2001] 205 CLR 434.

  4. Chappel v Hart [1998] 195 CLR 232.

  5. Naxakis Hospital v Western General Hospital [1999] 197 CLR 269.

  6. Panel of Eminent Persons (D Ipp, Chair), Review of the Law of Negligence, 2d report, Canberra, Oct 2002. Available online at: http://revofneg.treasury.gov.au/content/reports.asp>;

  7. Skene L., Law and Medical Practice, Rights, Duties, Claims and Defences. 2nd edition Sydney: Lexis-Nexis, 2004, Chapter 1.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582; [1957] 2 All ER 118 (QBD).

  9. Sidaway v Bethlem Royal Hospital and Maudsley Hospital Board [1985] AC 871 at 881; [1985] 1 All ER 643 at 649 (HL).

  10. Goode v Nash [1979] 21 SASR 419.

  11. Albrighton v Royal Prince Alfred Hospital [1980] 2 NSWLR 542 at 562 (NSW CA per Reynolds JA).

  12. F v R [1983] 33 SASR 189 at 189 (SA SC, FC per King CJ).

  13. Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld).

  14. Civil Liability Act 2002 (Tas).

  15. Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1998] AC 232.

  16. Civil Liability Acta 2002 (NSW) s 50.

  17. Skene L. Smallwood R. Informed consent: lessons from Australia. BMJ 2002;324:39–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Young, P.J. What is Reasonable Informed Consent? http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/324/7328/39#19010

  19. Skene L, Millwood S. Informed consent to medical procedures: the current law in Australia, doctors' knowledge of the law and their practices in informing patients. In: Shotton L, editor. Health Care, Law and Ethics. Katoomba NSW: Social Science Press; 1997. p/ 69–92.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Nickel N. ‘Do Perth surgeons have conversations with their patients?’ Paper presented at Australian Institute of Health, Law and Ethics Conference, Rogers v Whitaker: Ten years on. Canberra, 26 Oct 2002.

  21. Sidaway v Bethlem Royal Hospital and Maudsley Hospital Board [1985]AC 871 at 881; [1985] 1 All ER 643 at 649 (HL).

  22. VLRC Discussion Paper No 7, Informed Consent to Medical Treatment, Oct 1987, p 3, para 7.

  23. VLRC, Informed Consent: Symposia 1986.

  24. VLRC, Informed Decisions about Medical Procedures: Doctor and Patient Studies, 1989.

  25. VLRC Report 24.

  26. ALRC REport 50.

  27. NSWLRC Report 62.

  28. Skene L. You, Your Doctor and the Law. Oxfored: Oxford University Press; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  29. General guidelines for medical practitioners on providing information to patients. Commonwealth of Australia, 1993. Available online at http://www.health.gov.au:80/uhmre/publications/fullhtml/cp60.htm

  30. Mental Health Acta 1986 (Vic) s 53B, inserted in 1995.

  31. Thomas Addison, ‘Negligent failure to inform: Developments in the law since Rogers v Whitaker’ (2003) 11 TLJ 165.

  32. Teik Huat Tai v Saxon (WASC 1995).

  33. Causer v Stafford-Bell [1997] ACTSC 90.

  34. Young v Northern Territory (1992) 107 FLR 264; [1992] NTSC 27.

  35. Ibrahim v Arkell [1999] NSWCA 95.

  36. Potts v Frumar (NSWDC, 27 July 1998).

  37. Dunning v Scheibner (NSWSC, 15 Feb 1994).

  38. Shaw v Langley (QDC, 24 Nov 1993).

  39. Tekanawa v Millican (QDC, 11 Feb 1994).

  40. Rosenberg v Percival [2001] HCA 18.

  41. O'Sullivan v Little [1995] ACTSC 92.

  42. Burke v Humphrey [2001] TASSC 133.

  43. Tan v Benkovic [2000] NSWCA 295.

  44. Reid v Basson [2000] QSC 310.

  45. Johnson v Biggs [2000] NSWCA 338.

  46. Shead v Hooley [2000] NSWCA 362.

  47. Lawrence v Northern Territory of Australia (NTSC, 23 May 2001).

  48. Henderson v Low and Ors [2001] QSC 496.

  49. Knight v Stocken [2002] NSWSC 1161.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

    Loane Skene (Professor of Law)

Authors
  1. Loane Skene
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Skene, L. Courts as communicators: Can doctors learn from judges' decisions?. J. Bioethical Inquiry 1, 49–56 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02448907

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02448907

Keywords

Search

Navigation