Rogers v. Whitaker

The High Court of Australia affirmed the Supreme Court of New South Wales' determination that a doctor has a duty to warn a patient of any material risk involved in a proposed treatment. A risk is considered material if a reasonable person in similar circumstances would attach significance to the risk, or if the doctor is, or should be, cognizant that the particular patient would express concern about the risk. The trial court overruled the precept that a doctor could not be found negligent in warning a patient if the doctor acted within the purview of common practice, even though other practitioners may follow different procedures and regardless of the particular patient's concerns. In this case, Maree Whitaker became essentially blind after an unsucessful operation on her right eye caused sympathetic ophthalmia in her left eye. Although there was no question that the surgery had been performed with the requisite skill and care, Ms. Whitaker petitioned the court for relief due to the failure of the ophthalmologist, Dr. Christopher Rogers, to warn her of the possibility (approximately 1 in 14,000) that the sympathetic ophthalmia condition could develop. The trial court's award of damages was affirmed because, in spite of Ms. Whitaker's expressed specific concern that her "good eye" not be harmed, Dr. Rogers did not inform her of the potential risks associated with the surgery.     

The development of ego defenses in adolescence

This study tested a model for developmental transitions in defense use in adolescence based on an integration of psychoanalytic views of adolescence and Loevinger's theory of ego development. Loevinger's test for ego development and the Defense Mechanism Inventory were administered to 31 male and 35 female adolescents. Results supported several hypothesized developmental transitions: decrease in aggression outward defenses (e.g., displacement), increase in turning against the self, and an unpredicted increase in defenses entailing reversal (repression, denial, and reaction formation). Results failed to support a hypothesized increase in intellectualization and a decrease in projection. Results supported ego development over chronological age as a more valid index of maturity to apply to the investigation of the development of defenses. Implications of these findings are discussed and directions for future research are suggested.This research was partially funded by the Psychology Department at Boston UniversityAffiliations at the time when this study was conducted were Department of Psychology, Boston University, and Departments of Psychiatry at Beth Israel and McLean Hospitals/Harvard Medical School. Now Clinical Psychologist, Outpatient Psychiatry Service, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Massachusetts. Received Ph.D. in clinical psychology from Boston University. Research interests include ego defenses, psychotherapy research, gender, and sex roles.     

How medicine mistreats the elderly

Hamstrung by biases and limited facts, doctors routinely deliver shoddy care to old people. This guide shows how to reject that medical mindset and stay healthy longer.     

Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd. v. London Residuary Body — The end of pragmatism or the beginning of reason?

Conclusion Whilst Lord Templeman seemed satisfied with the result of the decision in thePrudential case, Lord Browne-Wilkinson did not share his view. He said that the outcome of the case was unsatisfactory and did not accord with the agreement of the parties. He said No one has produced any satisfactory rationale for the genesis of this rule. No one has been able to point to any useful purpose that it serves at the present day and he urged the Law Commission to examine whether the rule should continue to operate in English law.The genesis of the rule was, it seems, satisfactorily described by Lord Templeman and its usefulness lies in the fact that it imposes a degree of certainty and reliability on the parties. Each knows from the outset what they have contracted for. Its failing lies in the fact that its operation, as Russell L.J. rightly pointed out, leads to a freely negotiated bargain being defeated. If the Law Commission does examine the rule then clearly the central issue will be the balancing of these two principles and which is to be given effect to. If the law wishes to see certainty and reliability in this area, then Lord Templeman's decision is undoubtedly welcome since the law was clearly in a state of flux and confusion before the case.