Wilson Maria C I
J Law Med. 2009 May;16(5):862-84.
This article focuses on assault as a cause of action in medical law, with particular emphasis on the requirements for informed consent, both under common law and under the National Health Act 2003 (Sth Africa). In particular, the test for consent, adopted in Castell v De Greef 1994 (4) SA 408 (C), is analysed in detail. It is noted that the wording of this test for informed consent mirrors the wording of the test for negligence laid down in the Australian case of Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479. Further, the relationship between the delictual elements of wrongfulness and fault in assault is discussed. It is argued that in South African law a valid consent to medical treatment requires knowledge not only of the general nature of medical treatment but also of the consequences of the treatment and, in determining which consequences should be disclosed to a patient, the constitutional rights to equality and self-determination support the application of a subjective patient-centred test for informed consent. However, it is also proposed that the broad right of a patient to information is reined in at the fault element of assault, so that a limited requirement of consciousness of wrongfulness on the part of the defendant negates liability for delictual assault.
本文聚焦于医疗法律中作为诉因的侵犯行为，尤其着重于普通法以及2003年《南非国家卫生法》下的知情同意要求。特别地，对1994年（4）SA 408（C）号案件“卡斯泰尔诉德格里夫案”中采用的同意测试进行了详细分析。需注意的是，这一知情同意测试的措辞反映了澳大利亚“罗杰斯诉惠特克案”（1992）175 CLR 479中规定的过失测试的措辞。此外，还讨论了侵犯行为中违法性和过错这些不法行为要素之间的关系。有人认为，在南非法律中，有效的医疗治疗同意不仅要求知晓医疗治疗的一般性质，还要求知晓治疗的后果，并且在确定应向患者披露哪些后果时，平等权和自决权这两项宪法权利支持采用以患者为中心的主观知情同意测试。然而，也有人提议，患者获取信息的广泛权利在侵犯行为的过错要素方面受到限制，以至于被告对不法性的有限认知意识可免除其侵权侵犯行为的责任。
