Patients consent to surgical procedures is a universal issue in medical law. The legal position in Australia, because it falls somewhere between the North American doctrine of "informed consent", and the Bolam test in the United Kingdom, will be of interest to all clinicians and legal practitioners dealing with these issues. The High Court of Australia's decision in Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 109 ALR 625 is now the leading decision regarding of consent to surgical procedures in Australia. The author draws a thumbnail sketch of the law in Australia, and discusses some loopholes in the legal structure established by the Australian High Court. The author supports the view taken by the High Court of Australia, and provides some material to contest the allegation made by clinicians that lawyers in Australia are in some way responsible to "opening the floodgates" for an increase in legal claims by patients.
患者对手术程序的同意是医疗法律中的一个普遍问题。澳大利亚的法律立场处于北美“知情同意”原则和英国的博勒姆测试之间，这将引起所有处理这些问题的临床医生和法律从业者的兴趣。澳大利亚高等法院在罗杰斯诉惠特克案（1992）109 ALR 625中的判决现在是澳大利亚关于手术程序同意的主要判决。作者简要概述了澳大利亚的法律，并讨论了澳大利亚高等法院建立的法律结构中的一些漏洞。作者支持澳大利亚高等法院的观点，并提供了一些材料来反驳临床医生提出的指控，即澳大利亚的律师在某种程度上应对患者法律索赔的增加“打开闸门”负责。
