Subject: RE: Consent to venepuncture
The whole area is fascinating; the consent, in english law, does not need to
be informed consent, but it does need to be proper consent, and it is not
only consent to the venepuncture, but to the tests that will be done on the
blood.
In the US for drink driving cases, you are deemed to have given the consent
when you start driving. This consent cannot be withdrawn. So you can have a
blood sample taken off you by force at the direction of a police officer.
The Aus law on consent differs significantly to the brit law. See Rogers v
Whittaker (1992) 67 ALJR 47 7 (1992) ALR 625 (H Ct AUS)
Robert Forrest
> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list is an open discussion list for the academic community
> working in [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Bruce
> Campbell
> Sent: 17 April 2001 06:50
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Consent to venepuncture
>
>
> I know that the current consensus view is that informed consent is not
> necessary for routine venepuncture. I would be interested to hear if any
> organisation has changed their view and is informing patients of the
> potential complications of venepuncture as a result of medico-legal claims
> or advice.
>
> ****************************************
> Bruce Campbell FRCPA FAACB
> Sullivan Nicolaides Pathology
> Ph 61 (0)7 3377 8672
> Fax 61 (0)7 3870 5989
> Email [log in to unmask]
> ****************************************
>
>
> **********Confidentiality/Limited Liability Statement***************
>
> This message and any files transmitted with it contain privileged and
> confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee
> named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message,
> you must not disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on it.
> If you have received this message in error, please notify Sullivan
> Nicolaides Pathology immediately.
>
> Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender
> and Sullivan Nicolaides Pathology accepts no liability for the content
> of this message except where the sender specifically states them to be
> the views of Sullivan Nicolaides Pathology.
>
|