rights in regard to consent and their capacity to refuse treatment. The introduction of managed care in the United States has added another barrier, in that patients are not directly informed by the managed care agency of any economic limits placed on doctors in regard to treatment, investigations or choice of hospital, are usually unaware of whether that agency is a 'for profit' agency and are not likely to be informed of bonuses or incentives offered to doctors to reduce their use of expensive treatments or referrals.13
1 Schloendorff v Society of New York Hospital ( 1914) 105 NE92, 93.
2 Informed decisions about medical procedures. Doctor and patient studies. Melbourne: Law Reform Commission of Victoria, 1989.
3 Informed decisions about medical procedures. Melbourne, Sydney: Law Reform Commission of Victoria, Australian Law Reform Commission and New South Wales Law Reform Commission 1989.
4 Rogers v Whitaker 109 ALR 625 [ 1992].
5 Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [ 1957] 2 All ER 118, 121 per McNair J.
6 Sidaway v Bethlehem Royal Hospital Governors & Ors ( 1985) 1 All ER 643.
7 F v R ( 1983) 33 SASR 189 per King CJ.
8 Battersby v Tottman ( 1985) 37 SASR 524.
9Little J M. Humane medicine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
10 Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services v JWB and SMB ( 1992) FLC 92-293.
11 Incapacity and consent for health care guidelines. Carlton: Guardianship and Administration Board, 1995.
12 Formica L. "'Special medical procedures and the Family Court.'" Law Inst. J. Nov. 1994; 1046-53.
13 Levinsky N G. "'Social, institutional and economic barriers to the exercise of patients' rights'", N Eng J Med 1996: 334; 532-4.