Bang v. Charles T. Miller Hospital
251 Minn. 427, 88 N.W.2d 186 (1958)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a non-emergency situation, a physician must obtain a patient's informed consent before performing an operation, which requires informing the patient of alternative procedures and their material consequences to allow the patient to make the decision.
Facts:
- Helmer Bang experienced urinary trouble and consulted with Dr. Frederic E. B. Foley on April 6, 1953.
- Dr. Foley examined Bang, suspected a prostate issue, and recommended hospital admission for further examination and a possible prostate operation.
- Dr. Foley did not inform Bang that a potential part of the prostate operation would be the severing of his spermatic cords, a procedure that would render him sterile.
- The following day, on the operating table, Dr. Foley confirmed the need for a transurethral prostatic resection, and Bang consented to that procedure.
- During the operation, Dr. Foley performed the prostate resection and also severed Bang's spermatic cords, a procedure the doctor considered a routine part of the primary operation for a man of Bang's age.
- There was no immediate medical emergency that necessitated the severing of the spermatic cords without first obtaining specific consent.
Procedural Posture:
- Helmer Bang sued Dr. Frederic E. B. Foley in district court (trial court) for assault or unauthorized operation.
- At the close of the plaintiff's case at trial, the court granted the defendant's motion for dismissal on the merits.
- The district court then denied the plaintiff's motion to vacate the dismissal or grant a new trial.
- Bang, as appellant, appealed the district court's order to the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a patient's general consent to a specific operation authorize a physician to perform a related, but distinct and undisclosed, non-emergency procedure that results in the patient's sterilization?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Frank T. Gallagher
No. A patient's general consent to a specific operation does not authorize a physician to perform a related but distinct and undisclosed non-emergency procedure with significant consequences. Citing its precedent in Mohr v. Williams, the court reasoned that a patient must be consulted and consent before a physician may operate, with exceptions for emergencies or for unforeseeable conditions discovered during surgery that threaten a patient's life or health. Neither exception applied here. In non-emergency situations where alternative procedures exist—such as performing a prostatectomy with the consequence of sterilization versus performing it with a risk of infection—the physician has a duty to inform the patient of the alternatives and their likely outcomes. This disclosure is necessary to give the patient the opportunity to decide which course of action to take. Because the testimony conflicted as to the scope of the consent given, the question was one of fact that should have been decided by a jury.
Analysis:
This decision significantly advances the legal doctrine from simple consent to the modern standard of informed consent. It establishes that a physician's duty extends beyond just getting permission for a procedure to actively educating the patient about foreseeable, material choices and their consequences. By holding that a doctor's view of a procedure as 'routine' does not override the patient's right to decide on matters with life-altering outcomes like sterilization, the case empowers patient autonomy in medical decision-making. This precedent places a clear affirmative duty on physicians to disclose alternative treatments and their significant risks in non-emergency situations.
Unlock the full brief for Bang v. Charles T. Miller Hospital