| Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr., University Board of Trustees | |
|---|---|
 California's first district court of appeals also resides within the California Supreme Court. | |
| Court | Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One |
| Decided | 1957 |
| Citation(s) | 154 Cal. App. 2d 560; 317 P.2d 170 |
| Case history | |
| Prior action(s) | Scholendorff v. Society of New York Hospital |
| Subsequent action(s) | The rehearing was denied 12 November 1957, and the petition to the Supreme Court was rejected 18 December 1957. |
| Holding | |
| Martin Salgo was awarded $250,000 for malpractice against Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees and Dr. Frank Gerbode. This amount was reduced to $213,355 by the trial court. | |
Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees was a 1957 court case that helped to establish what the practice of informed consent was supposed to look like in the practice of modern medicine. This was evaluated with respect to the California Court of Appeals case where Martin Salgo sued the trustees of Stanford University and Stanford physician Dr. Frank Gerbode for malpractice as he claimed that they did not inform him nor his family of the details and risks associated with an aortogram which left him permanently paralyzed in his lower extremities.[1][2]
The decision in Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees coined the term "informed consent" in addition to helping to establish what informed consent should look like in modern day practice.[2][3] At the time, the concept of informed consent was relatively new with the first court cases helping to distinguish it coming to light in the early 20th century.[2] This caused a shift in the idea of what role a physician upheld for their patients from protecting them from harm (physician-advocate) to becoming an advocate for their patient (patient advocate), helping and providing them with the necessary information to make an intelligent, informed decision rather than making a decision in their best interest without consultation.[4] This led to a larger incorporation of the patient in the decision-making process, allowing them to voice their personal values, preferences, fears, and expectations for the procedure.
Although the idea of consent was already established through Walter Reed's "Consent Form," Nuremberg Doctors' Trials, and Schloendroff v. Society of New York Hospital (1914), it had yet to be fully incorporated into practice and the limits of disclosure had yet to be determined at the time of Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees.[2][1]
As a result of the decision in the case, Martin Salgo (55 years old) was awarded $250,000 against Stanford University Hospitals and Dr. Frank Gerbode: The trial court later reduced the amount to $213,355.[5]
- ^ a b "Some Important Court Cases" (PDF). Stanford. Retrieved 22 January 2020.
- ^ a b c d "Informed Consent: I. History of Informed Consent.". Bioethics. Jennings, Bruce, 1949- (4th ed.). Farmington Hills, Mich. ISBN 978-0-02-866212-1. OCLC 879867033.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link) - ^ O.P, Grzegorz Mazur (2011-09-22). Informed Consent, Proxy Consent, and Catholic Bioethics: For the Good of the Subject. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 2. ISBN 978-94-007-2196-8.
- ^ Pappas, George (1970). "Informed Consent: A Malpractice Headache Notes and Comments". Chicago-Kent Law Review. 47 (2): 242–252. Retrieved 2020-02-19.
- ^ "Salgo v. Leland Stanford Etc. Bd. Trustees, 317 P.2d 170, 154 Cal. App. 2d 560 – CourtListener.com". CourtListener. Retrieved 2020-01-27.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search