Hippocrates: Decorum, Trans JonesW. H. S., Harvard University Press, 2nd Edition.
2.
President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioural Research: “Making Health Care Decisions: The Ethical and Legal Implications of Informed Consent in the Patient-Practitioner Relationship”.
3.
Ib. Appendix E, Martin S. Pernick.
4.
Cited in Pernick (v. Sup.).
5.
(1767) 2 Wils. C. P. 359.
6.
Twombly v Leach (1853) 65 Mass 397: American Digest Century Edition Vol 39 p975.
7.
(1880) Unreported: Cited in Pernick (v. Sup.).
8.
Schloendorff v Society of N. Y. Hosp. 211 N. Y. 125.
9.
Salgo v Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees, 154 Cal. App. 2d 560 (1957).
10.
Natanson v Kline 350 P. 2d 1093 (1960).
11.
e.g. Bolam v Friern H. M. C. [1957] 1 W. L. R. 582.
12.
Canterbury v Spence (1972) 464 F. 2d 272.
13.
Bly v Rhoads 222 S. E. 2d 783.
14.
“Making Health Care Decisions,” Vol 1. P. 21, n22.
15.
Ib. P. 76, n14.
16.
(1980) 114 D. L. R. 1.
17.
“Overcoming the Causation Hurdle in Informed Consent Cases: the principle in McGhee v N. C. B. Gerald Robertson, University of West Ontario Law Review, Vol 22 number 1.
18.
Gerald Robertson, “Informed Consent in Canada: an empirical study”: Osgood Hall Law Journal, Volume 22, number 1.
19.
Chatterton v Gerson (1981) QB 432.
20.
“Informed Consent in Canada” (v. Sup.) Notes, 35, 40.
21.
Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital and the Maudsley Hospital [1985] 1 W. L. R. 635.
22.
Clarke v Adams (1950) S. J. 44.
23.
Times, 2 July 1954.
24.
e.g. Hedley Byrne v Heller (1964) AC 465.
25.
[1985] 1 W. L. R. 845.
26.
[1984] QB 493.
27.
e.g. Parmley v Parmley and Yule (1945) DLR 81.
28.
Smith v Auckland Hospital Board (1965) N.Z.L.R. 191 at 219.
