Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Should I warn the patient first?

Clare Delany1

  • 1School of Physiotherapy, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia.

The Australian Journal of Physiotherapy
|January 1, 1996
PubMed
Summary

The High Court of Australia mandated that healthcare professionals must inform patients about individualized treatment risks. This ruling in Rogers v Whitaker (1992) requires personalized patient warnings, not generalized practices.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Exploring the infant's experience of the infant-clinician relationship in the neonatal intensive care unit: A phenomenological study.

Infant mental health journal·2026
Same author

GP survivors' experiences working with family violence survivors: a qualitative study.

The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners·2026
Same author

The infant's lived experience of bonding and connection with their parents in a neonatal intensive care.

Infant mental health journal·2026
Same author

A study of the infant's lived experience of neonatal intensive care.

Early human development·2025
Same author

How is clinical ethics reasoning done in practice? A review of the empirical literature.

Journal of medical ethics·2025
Same author

How clinical ethics discussions can be a model for accommodating and incorporating plural values in paediatric and adult healthcare settings.

Monash bioethics review·2024

Area of Science:

  • Medical Law
  • Patient Rights
  • Informed Consent

Background:

  • The legal duty of care for health professionals has evolved.
  • Previous practices often relied on generalized information dissemination.
  • Patient autonomy and informed consent are central to modern healthcare.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To analyze the landmark High Court of Australia decision in Rogers v Whitaker (1992).
  • To clarify the legal obligations of health professionals regarding patient warnings.
  • To emphasize the shift towards individualized patient information.

Main Methods:

  • Legal case analysis of Rogers v Whitaker (1992).
  • Examination of the High Court of Australia's ruling on duty of care.
  • Review of implications for healthcare practitioner practices.

Main Results:

  • Health professionals have a duty to warn patients of risks specific to their individual circumstances.
  • Generalized warnings or adherence to common practice are insufficient.
  • The ruling necessitates a patient-centered approach to information disclosure.

Conclusions:

  • The Rogers v Whitaker decision fundamentally changed the standard for providing information and warnings to patients.
  • Healthcare providers must adapt their communication strategies to meet new legal standards.
  • Individualized risk disclosure is now a legal requirement for health professionals.

Related Experiment Videos