I'm able to provide quick turn around, I've written 8 pages plus in a matter of hours with research done and citations made. I am in the process of completing a business minor as part of my undergraduate degree and am familiar with tort law as my business focus is law and I've recently written my Law School Admission Tests. I also have academic tort law materials I would be able to cite to add depth and credibility to the paper.
An example of my work, this is an excerpt from a 12 page essay on the development of informed consent for an upper year philosophy course on which I scored an A+.
When discussing the structure of Canadian legality surrounding informed consent it is necessary to discuss the case of Phillip G Hopp versus Aron E Lepp in 1980. The issue at hand in this case was whether the patient (Lepp) had been fully informed of all risks to a serious surgery by the surgeon (Hopp). The original trial court had dismissed the charges of negligence and battery against Lepp however the Alberta Court of Appeals held the charge of battery or assault and saw Hopp awarded fifteen thousand dollars in damages. (Supreme Court of Canada, 1980)
When the case was brought to the Supreme Court the judgment ruled with the original trial judge who had dismissed the charges. The judgment was struck on the grounds that all requested information had been provided by Hopp and the choice had been left to the informed patient, Lepp.
The second case we must look at in examining the issues of informed consent also went before the Supreme Court in 1980, this case is known as a guide to cases of informed consent as it was in this legal battle that the distinction was made between the charge of battery and the charge of negligence. The case of John Reibl versus Robert A Hughes led us to the calculus of negligence in which one must establish a dereliction of the duty to inform. This duty is founded on the right of a patient to make a choice with all relevant knowledge to the procedure and any material risks, material in this case taking on the connotation of significant implications.
The case was brought before the courts after Reibl underwent a serious surgery for a removal of an occlusion in the carotid artery. (Supreme Court, 1980) Though his life was not threatened by the occlusion he was suffering from headaches which he believed the surgery would alleviate; Reibl was also told by his surgeon that the occlusion if left untreated would lead to a greater risk of stroke.
The material matters of this case are as follows: the surgery would not alleviate the headaches which the patient was tormented by, there was a risk of stroke involved in the surgery, and Reibl was a mere eighteen months away from retirement with a full pension.
The Supreme Court found while Reibl had been informed of the risks of not having the surgery he had been left unaware of the significant risks associated with the surgery itself. Reibl consequently suffered a stroke paralyzing him on one side and leaving him impotent. (Dillon, 1998) The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that a reasonable person in Reibl’s situation, being a mere year a half away from a full pension and in no immediate medical danger from his condition, would have decided against the surgery at the time he had consented if he had been fully aware of all risks involved with going forward with the operation. Though his consent is not vitiated by the failure of the surgeon to disclose the risks associated with the surgery, which rules out charges of battery, the surgeon violated his professional obligation via the failure of disclosure therefore leaving him at the mercy of the charges of negligence.
Both of these cases are evidenced as helping to pave the way for a legal understanding of informed consent in Canada. This is clearly stated in an article by Janice R Dillon printed in an issue of Bioethics Quarterly,
Hopp v Lepp… established that possible as well as probable risks must be disclosed if the possible risk carries serious consequences such as paralysis or death. In Reibl v. Hughes, the Supreme Court considered the statistical evidence of the likelihood of stroke or death ensuing from the surgery (approximately 10-15%) but concluded that the risk was material because of the serious consequences involved. The cases are clear that possible or remote risks must be disclosed if the consequences would be grave.