Search results
Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees was a 1957 court case that helped to establish what the practice of informed consent was supposed to look like in the practice of modern medicine.
In a malpractice action the jury awarded Martin Salgo 1 the sum of $250,000 against defendants Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees, Stanford University Hospitals, 2 and Dr. Frank Gerbode. The trial court reduced the award to $213,355.
Jan 3, 2007 · This case involved a patient named Martin Salgo who awoke paralyzed after aortography, having never been informed that such a risk existed. The decision held that failure to disclose risks and alternatives was cause for legal action on its own, reaching further than a case of battery.
- Douglas S. T. Green, C. Ronald MacKenzie
- 2007
Nevertheless, the principle of “informed consent” remained nameless and not legally binding until the term was first publicly recorded in the court documents for the 1957 case Salgo v Leland Stanford Jr University Board of Trustees. 17 The plaintiff in the case, Mr Martin Salgo, had arteriosclerosis of the aorta and underwent a translumbar ...
Mar 1, 2019 · It was not until 1957, with the case of Martin Salgo, that informed consent became a legal requirement in clinical medicine. Informed consent is one of the most important aspects of ethical ...
- 3 min
- 5K
- WTH is Bioethics?
The modern pro-cess of obtaining informed consent from individuals inter-ested in participating in research focuses in large part on a written text that documents investigators’ attempts to provide the critical elements of information that have been outlined in 45 CFR 46.116 from its inception.
People also ask
How much did Martin Salgo get paid?
Why did Martin Salgo awoke paralyzed after aortography?
How did Salgo get an aortogram?
Why did Martin Salgo visit Dr Gerbode?
Martin Salgo won his case against the Leland Stanford, Jr. University Board of Trustees after he was left paralyzed following experimental translumbar aortography. 2 The court ruled that the duty to disclose “any facts which are necessary to form the basis of an intelligent consent by the patient to a proposed treatment” was evident.
