A medical practitioner managing an ongoing procedure such as labour does not owe a duty to inform the patient of alternative treatment options (such as caesarean section) where: (a) the alternative is not medically indicated; (b) nothing of medical significance has occurred requiring alteration of the planned course; (c) the patient's situation is not exceptional by objective standards; and (d) the patient has given no indication of wanting to change course. The trial judge's broader proposition — that no duty to inform arises unless the practitioner intends to positively recommend the alternative — was held to be too broadly stated and inconsistent with accepted principle. The question of whether and to what extent Rogers v Whitaker principles apply during ongoing procedures remains fact-dependent and was not fully resolved.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.