Torts
103 Wn.2d 645, 695 P.2d 116 (Wash. 1985)
Study notes for Shorter v. Drury: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
A written refusal of blood transfusions, accompanied by a release of liability, constitutes an enforceable assumption of risk that bars malpractice recovery even under comparative negligence statutes.
In Shorter v. Drury, the Washington Supreme Court highlighted the importance of patient autonomy in medical decision-making, especially concerning informed consent and the refusal of treatment based on personal beliefs. The case emphasizes how a written and informed consent that explicitly includes a refusal of a particular treatment, like blood transfusions, can serve as a complete defense against malpractice claims. Professors may focus on the balance between individual rights and the public policy implications of allowing such releases within the healthcare context, discussing how this can impact future cases involving religious prerogatives and medical ethics.
Additionally, the court's interpretation of the comparative negligence statute in Washington is significant, as it reinforces the idea that an express assumption of risk, when clearly articulated, can take precedence over negligence claims. This aspect of the case can lead to discussions on the limits of liability in medical practice and the extent to which patients can absolve healthcare providers from responsibility for outcomes that result from their personal choices.
REFUSE: Release, Express, Full autonomy, Understood, Safe practice, Effectively bar.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Canterbury v. Spence | In Canterbury, the focus was on the duty to inform, whereas Shorter emphasized the enforceability of a patient's refusal of treatment. |
| Gonzalez v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Ry. Co. | Gonzalez dealt with implied consent in harmful situations, unlike Shorter which revolved around explicit written consent and refusal. |
| Kahn v. Baltimore Gas Co. | Kahn examined assumed risk in the property context, whereas Shorter specifically addressed medical malpractice and informed consent. |
Allowing patients to expressively refuse treatments aligns with the principles of autonomy and informed consent, thus respecting personal beliefs and choices.
This rule may undermine patient safety by encouraging patients to refuse essential medical treatments without fully understanding the consequences.
This case could appear on exams in the context of informed consent, medical malpractice defenses, or the interaction between patient autonomy and public policy, requiring students to analyze the implications of a written release in light of consent laws.