Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees

The Supreme Court of California, where the case was decided.

Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees is a landmark legal case in the United States that significantly influenced the doctrine of informed consent in medical practice. The case was decided by the California Court of Appeal in 1957 and is often cited in discussions of medical ethics and patient rights.

Background

The case arose from a medical procedure performed on Martin Salgo at the Stanford University Hospital. Salgo underwent an aortography, a diagnostic procedure involving the injection of a contrast medium into the aorta to visualize it on X-rays. Following the procedure, Salgo suffered from paralysis, which he claimed was due to the negligence of the medical staff and the lack of adequate information provided to him about the risks involved.

Legal Proceedings

Salgo filed a lawsuit against the Leland Stanford Junior University Board of Trustees, alleging that the physicians failed to inform him of the potential risks associated with the procedure. The case was heard by the California Court of Appeal, which had to determine whether the physicians had a duty to disclose specific risks to the patient.

Court Decision

The court's decision in Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees established the principle that physicians have a duty to disclose any facts which are necessary to form the basis of an intelligent consent by the patient to the proposed treatment. This decision marked a significant development in the legal concept of informed consent, emphasizing the patient's right to be informed about the risks, benefits, and alternatives of medical procedures.

Impact on Medical Ethics

Hippocrates, often considered the "Father of Medicine," whose ethical principles influence modern medical practice.

The Salgo case is a cornerstone in the evolution of medical ethics, particularly in the context of informed consent. It underscored the importance of communication between physicians and patients, ensuring that patients are active participants in their healthcare decisions. This case, along with others, helped shape the ethical guidelines that govern medical practice today.

Related Legal Cases

The Salgo decision is often discussed alongside other significant cases in medical law, such as Canterbury v. Spence and Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital. These cases collectively contribute to the legal framework that defines the obligations of healthcare providers to their patients.

Related Pages

• Informed consent
• Medical ethics
• Patient rights
• California Court of Appeal

File:Doctors' trial, Nuremberg, 1946–1947.jpg

The Doctors' Trial at Nuremberg, which addressed medical ethics and informed consent.

See Also

• Hippocratic Oath
• Bioethics
• Patient safety