Abstract
This paper analyzes to what extent the following statement by Judge Cardozo is recognized by the English courts: "Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with their own body and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient's consent commits an assault for which he is liable in damages". The paper concludes, after a review of several cases in the English court system, that English courts have adhered to Judge Cardozo's statement of principle only to some extent.

From the Paper
"The second part of Judge Cardozo's statement is also recognised by the English court. Hardly can a doctor escape liability for assault if he administers treatment to a mentally competent patient without his consent. Consent can either be obtained orally or in writing (express consent) or implied from the patient's compliance with a procedure (implied consent). Patient's consent to treatment will be held invalid if the doctor is found to have misled a patient in relation to medical treatment. This was illustrated in Potts v NWRHA. The patient had agreed to an injection, which she understood to be a routine post-natal vaccination but which was in reality the controversial long-standing contraceptive Depo-Provera. Her consent to the treatment was obtained by the doctor who, although acted in good faith, misled her as to the nature of what was being done to her. The doctor was therefore held liable in battery. Also, in Appleton v Garret, a dentist deliberately overtreated a number of patients for financial reasons, obtaining their purported consent by giving the impression that the treatment was medically necessary. The court said a surgeon who performed an operation without his patient's consent commited an assault for which he would be liable in damages. Here there was no real consent, and the trespass was of such nature as to justify an award of aggravated as well as compensatory damages. Again in R v Tabassum, a false doctor was convicted of indecent assault. He succeeded in persuading several women to consent to breast examination after claiming that he was conducting research into breast cancer. The court held that where there was a mistaken belief that an examination was being made by a medically qualified person, a person was only consenting to the nature of the act and not its quality. In the absence of genuine consent, therefore, the defendant was guilty of indecent assault."

Tags:hospital, doctors, court

Abstract
The paper discusses the judicial process as applied to pesticide court cases, which have seemingly not resulted in any significant changes in pesticide law. The paper analyzes how the most consistent feature of the decisions in the court cases was that when harm was caused to a business or the livelihood of farmers, the U.S. Supreme Court generally agreed to hear the case, and found in favor of the plaintiffs against the chemical manufacturers. The paper further discusses that when the case was brought by an individual, and it was a matter of personal injury resulting from incidental contact with the substance in question, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case, in some cases, a settlement was negotiated. The paper further analyzes a case that succeeded where the suit brought on the basis that the chemical companies were unreasonably withholding information that should be made available to the public.


Table of Contents:
Bates et al v. Dow AgroSciences LLC and Citizen Right to Sue
Precursor Legal Battle: Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.
Three Additional FIFRA Suits
League of Wilderness Defenders v. Forsgren (2002) Raises Timber Issues
Guzman v. Amvac Chemical Corporation Won Workers' Rights
Judicial Process in Two Related Lawsuits
Endangered Species and Pesticides
The Court Refused to Hear a Pesticide Case
Roundup
Discussion
Findings
References

From the Paper
"While manufacturers were required to disclose all ingredients to the EPA, even inert ingredient, the EPA "routinely withholds this information from the public because of industry claims that the information is subject to trade secrecy laws. The plaintiffs argued that EPA wrongfully accepted manufacturers' blanket claims of confidentiality without first ascertaining that the inerts in the six pesticide products qualified as trade secrets" (Daily Environment Reporter)."

Tags:Environmental, Protection, Agency, Justice, Stevens, Cardozo