Medical practices these days tend to be pretty specialized. While a Connecticut resident may have a general practitioner for basic check-ups and small problems like colds, when there is something more serious happening, that person is likely to be referred to someone for that specific problem. Further, when dealing with internal medicine, there may be multiple doctors and other health care workers involved in patient care, as a radiologist may need to read scans or x-rays, while a specialist determines the best course of action, and a surgeon does any necessary procedures, usually accompanied by an anesthesiologist.
Humans have been seeking a cure for cancer for as long as we have been aware the disease existed. Such a cure may have been easier to come by if there weren't so many different types of it and ways for cancer to attack. While we are not there yet, we have come a long way in cancer diagnosis and treatment, and, for many types, cancer does not have to be a death sentence. However, in almost all cases, treatment depends upon catching the disease in an early stage, before it has spread to multiple, or more vulnerable organs.
States like Connecticut often have conflicting policy outcomes that need to be reconciled when they are passing laws that affect their citizens. For example, states have an interest in protecting vulnerable people, like patients with medical problems, from being injured by the negligence of health care providers, and to allow them to seek compensation when they are. This is why there are laws regarding medical malpractice. However, some argue that the state also has an interest in keeping the provision of health care services viable, which would be difficult if doctors and other providers were eternally looking out for possible lawsuits over possible mistakes made in the past. Further, legal cases become harder to make as time passes, as evidence gets lost or becomes stale, and witnesses have a harder time remembering specifics.
Every day, many lives are place in the hands of medical professionals across the country. While the hope and expectation is that appropriate care is taken, sometimes that trust is betrayed. In such cases, life-altering injuries can occur or even death. While it may be difficult to contemplate the right response to such tragedies, there is no reason to allow these actions to go unchallenged.
Doctors and other healthcare providers fill a vital role in the lives of Connecticut residents. People are often at their most vulnerable when they are sick or injured, and need to be able to count on professionals who take their patients' needs and rights into consideration, and do their jobs as competently as human beings can. The results of physicians who make mistakes or act in an unreasonable manner can be devastating to the health of a patient and the mental and emotional well-being of his or her family and loved ones.
A few weeks ago, we discussed the concept of "informed consent" with regards to medical malpractice cases in Connecticut. Basically, medical professionals have a duty to ensure that patients understand the risks and benefits of a certain course of medical treatment, that they are aware of feasible alternatives and that they consent to going forward with the treatment. But what does this mean, in practice, to a person who has been injured and is attempting to recover for his or her medical expenses and other losses due to a lack of informed consent? One of the main important concepts in consent-based medical malpractice cases is "materiality." When a patient is informed about a medical treatment or procedure, he or she must be given all information regarding the material risks of the treatment. In this context, "material" information is that information which a reasonably prudent person would take into account when deciding whether to submit to the treatment. Note that this is an objective, rather than subjective standard. This means that materiality is not based upon what this particular patient may have thought, but what a hypothetical reasonable person would have found important. The second important idea in malpractice cases based upon lack of informed consent is that of "proximate cause." Under Connecticut law, this means that a person injured by a medical treatment must show that if disclosure of material risks had been made, a reasonable person would not have consented to the treatment. Again, the state of mind of the particular patient involved is not the standard, but rather whether a hypothetical reasonable patient would have found the risk significant enough to mot submit to the treatment.