General Cases >> Consent >> Case 1 / Case 2 / Case 3 / Case 4 / Case 5 / Case 6 / Case 7 / Case 8

Canterbury v Spence 464 F 2d 772 (1972) (DC Cir)

The plaintiff consulted the defendant because of severe pain between his shoulder blades. After x-rays and a myelogram, surgery was recommended to establish the true nature of the problem, identified in the region of the fourth thoracic vertebra. The surgeon performed a laminectomy - the excision of the posterior arch of the vertebra. The plaintiff, who was 19 years old, did not object or ask about the risks involved. The mother was told that the operation was 'not any more serious than any other operation. 'Subsequently, the patient suffered a number of disabilities of a permanent nature which it was claimed arose from the laminectomy, including urological problems, incontinence and difficulties walking. The plaintiff alleged that the doctor failed to warn of the risk of serious disability from the laminectomy.

Court decision