Opinion ID: 1872831
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: analysis of law

Text: Mississippi follows the fundamental notion that the patient is master of his/her own body. This concept was strongly endorsed in Phillips by and through Phillips v. Hull, 516 So.2d 488 (Miss. 1987). The foundation for the consent requirement applicable to medical practitioners is the tort law of assault and battery  the legal doctrine protecting the right of each individual to be touched only when and in the way authorized by that individual. A landmark case on consent cites as the `root premise' of consent law the oft-quoted statement of Justice Cardoza that Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body, and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient's consent commits an assault for which he is liable for damages. Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972), quoting Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hosp., 211 N.Y. 125, 105 N.E. 92, 93 (1914). Medical and surgical procedures that involve touching a patient's person, even the simplest manipulation of a limb, must be properly authorized or the person performing the procedures will be subject to an action for battery. The obvious corollary is that, absent special circumstances, a competent individual has a right to refuse to authorize a procedure, whether the refusal is grounded on doubt that the contemplated procedure will be successful, concern about probable risks or consequences, lack of confidence in the physician recommending the procedure, religious belief, or mere whim. Phillips by and through Phillips v. Hull, 516 So.2d 488, 491-92 (Miss. 1987) quoting P. Lasky, 11B Hospital Law Manual; Consent to Medical and Surgical Procedures, 1 (1986). The informed consent rule has been referred to as the bedrock of this state's respect for the individual's right to be free from unwanted bodily intrusions no matter how well intentioned. In re Brown, 478 So.2d 1033, 1040 (Miss. 1985). In Brown, we noted that the fundamental right to be left alone is rooted in the right to privacy recognized by the common law of this state and Article 3, § 32 of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890. In re Brown, 478 So.2d 1033, 1040 (Miss. 1985), citing Deaton v. Delta Democrat Publishing Company, 326 So.2d 471, 473 (Miss. 1976). Concisely stated in one sentence, no physician may perform any procedure on a patient no matter how slight or well intentioned without that patient's informed consent, and violation of this rule constitutes a battery: No physician or hospital may subject one to medical treatment without that person's informed consent. Reikes v. Martin, 471 So.2d 385, 392 (Miss. 1985); Ross v. Hodges, 234 So.2d 905, 908 (Miss. 1970). See Miss. Code Ann. §§ 41-41-3, et seq. (Supp. 1984). Violation of this rule constitutes a battery. See Scott v. Bradford, 606 P.2d 554, 557 (Okla. 1979); Chambers v. Nottebaum, 96 So.2d 716, 718-19 (Fla. App. 1957); Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261, 104 N.W. 12, 14-15 (1905). In re Brown, 478 So.2d 1033, 1040 (Miss. 1985). The positive law of this state affords each person a substantial zone of freedom which, at his election, he may keep private. The zone surrounds person and place and without his consent may not be invaded by other persons... . Young v. Jackson, 572 So.2d 378, 381 (Miss. 1990). Furthermore, our legislature has recognized the sanctity of the patient's control over one's own body and has enacted several statutes governing consent questions for medical treatment. See Miss. Code Ann. §§ 41-41-3, -5, -7, -9 (Supp. 1991) (who may consent to medical procedures; implied consent under emergency situations; consent by court order, etc.).