Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T22:08:32.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Uncertainty and Medical Authority in the World of Jay Katz

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2021

Robert A. Burt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In The Silent World of Doctor and Patient, Jay Katz painted a portrait of medical practice in which physicians voices dominate and drown out others with at least equal and often superior claims to be heard. Many physicians today, however, complain that their voices are no longer sufficiently heard in the provision of medical care. Some are angry at this perceived turn of events; they see intrusions by unscrupulous lawyers, by unsympathetic judges and lay jurors, by greedy malpractice insurance companies and by ham-handed bureaucratic regulators. These angry physicians mimic Rodney Dangerfield's comic complaint that they don't get no respect. And many of these angry physicians regard the influential work of Jay Katz as part of their problem.

Another contemporary group of physicians evaluate Jay's work in a different mood. These physicians, typically younger members of the profession, are intrigued by Jay's analysis and often seem eager to implement it—to solicit patients informed consent, to invite (sensible) judicial or legislative regulation, to eschew the old model of the infallible father-physician.

Type
The Silent World
Information
Law, Medicine and Healthcare , Volume 16 , Issue 3-4 , Winter 1988 , pp. 190 - 196
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

See Katz, Jay, “Informed Consent—A Fairy Tale? Law's Vision”, University of Pittsburgh Law Review 39 (1977): 137.Google Scholar
Burt, Robert A., Taking Care of Strangers: The Rule of Law in Doctor-Patient Relations (New York: Free Press, 1979).Google Scholar
In re Quinlan, 355 A. 2d 647 (N.J. Sup.Ct., 1976).Google Scholar
Superintendent of Belchertown State School v. Saikewicz, 373 Mass. 728, 370 N.E. 2d 417 (1977).Google Scholar
See, eg., In re Conroy, 98 N.J. 321, 486 A.2d 1209 (1985), Brophy v. New England Sinai Hosp., 398 Mass. 417, 497 N.E. 2d 626 (1986), Kennedy, John F. Memorial Hosp. v. Bludworth, 452 So.2d 921 (Fla. 1984).Google Scholar
Katz, Jay, The Silent World of Doctor and Patient (New York: Free Press, 1984) 171 [hereafter cited as Silent World].Google Scholar
Silent World at 217–19.Google Scholar
In re Carder, No. 87-609 (D.C. Superior Ct., 1987). Judge Sullivan's order was affirmed by a panel of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals but this affirmance was vacated and the matter set for en banc consideration by the full Court; at this time, no en banc decision has been rendered.Google Scholar
See Jefferson v. Griffin Spalding County Hosp. Auth., 247 Ga. 86, 274 S.E.2d 457 (1981); Nancy Rhoden, “The Judge in the Delivery Room: The Emergence of Court-Ordered Cesareans”, 74 California Law Review 1951 (1986).Google Scholar
In re Carder transcript, June 18, 1987, at pp. 83–84 [hereafter cited as Transcript].Google Scholar
Id.: 89.Google Scholar
Id.: 89-90.Google Scholar
Id.: 91.Google Scholar
Id.: 93.Google Scholar
Id.: 95.Google Scholar
Id.: 84.Google Scholar
Id.: 85.Google Scholar
I owe this observation to Stephen Sowle, Yale Law School Class of 1990.Google Scholar
Transcript at 60. Later, when the judge interrupted the summation by Angela's attorney and observed, “She's going to die, Mr. Sylvester,” Angela's husband interjected, “Who is to say she's going to die?” Transcript at 76.Google Scholar
Transcript at pp. 20–21 (cross-examination of Dr. Hamner), p. 33 (cross-examination of Dr. Weingold).Google Scholar
A year earlier, another District of Columbia hospital had successfully sought a court order for a Cesarean operation where the mother's prolonged labor endangered the fetus's survival but the mother refused consent for the surgery without giving any specific reason for her refusal. In re Maydun, 114 Daily Wash. L. Rptr. (D.C. Super. Ct., 1986). This case differed from Angela Carder's in many ways: in particular, the operation there did not seriously endanger the mother's life, the fetus was virtually certain to survive if the operation were performed, and the hospital physicians all wanted to perform the operation. The Maydun precedent created no sensible risk of criminal or civil liability for George Washington Hospital if—as Angela Carder, her family and her physicians all wanted—the Cesarean operation had not been performed.Google Scholar
Transcript at 7.Google Scholar
Supra note 2, at 164–69.Google Scholar
Silent World at 127, citing F. Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, trans D. Magarshack (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1958) pp. 300–301.Google Scholar