Conclusion

Abstract

The book makes a distinction between diagnosis/treatment and information disclosure, and distinguish the balanced, unbiased, and contextualised “disclosure” of alternative treatment options from the “selection” of treatment and the “recommendation” of treatment. The book finds that the threshold for a treatment option falling within a practitioner’s duty to inform may be lower than that required to satisfy the Bolam test or the “two schools of thought” doctrine. The book examines that the common law jurisdictions differ in the extent to which they recognise a legal duty to inform about alternatives. The book concludes that, compared to the approaches of either heavily relying on tort law or relying exclusively on professional regulation, the New Zealand’s Code (of Patients’ Rights) approach has the merit of combining the authority, stability, and proactive character of legislation, with the flexible and embracing nature of professional regulation, at the same time avoiding the inconveniences of medical negligence lawsuits.