Maintaining the patient's right to self-determination requires information about an alternative treatment option if several equally-valued treatment options are available for medically meaningful and indicated therapy
The appellate court correctly confirmed that the defendant had an obligation to provide information that two treatment alternatives were available, one of which was a new-country procedure at that time. According to the case law of the cognitive Senate, the choice of the treatment method is primarily the responsibility of the physician (Senate judgments BGHZ 102, 17, 22, 106, 153, 157, of the 11 May 1982 - VI ZR 171 / 80 - VersR 1982, 771, 772, 24, No-vember 1987 - VI ZR 65 / 87 - VersR 1988, 190, 191, and 15 March 2005 - VI ZR 313 / 03 - VersR 2005, 836; OLG two-bridges, OLGR 2001, 79, 81 with Senate decision of 19 December 2000 - VI ZR 171 / 00 - OLG Karlsruhe, MedR 2003, 229, 230).
The preservation of the patient's right to self-determination requires, however, information about an alternative treatment option if several equivalent treatment options are available for medically meaningful and indicated therapy, which lead to different strains on the patient or offer different risks and chances of success (Senate judgments BGHZ 102, 17 , 22; 106, 153, 157; of the 14 September 2004 - VI ZR 186 / 03 - VersR 2005, 227; of the 15 March 2005 - VI ZR 313 / 03 - aaO; Katzenmeier, Arzstaftung, 2002, S. 331 f ; MünchKommBGB / Wagner, 4., Ed., § 823 Rn. 707 f .; Staudinger / Hager, BGB, 13. Editing , § 823, Rn. I 92 mwN).
That then in the dispute, the obligation to educate about the alternative possibilities of manual or computer-assisted operation was, the court of appeal affirmed without errors of law. The Court of Appeal's finding that the plaintiff was duly informed about the advantages and disadvantages of the treatment methods known at that time is not objectionable from the point of view of auditing, especially taking into account that even if a new method of treatment is used, as usual "The chances and risks of the treatment must be explained to all (permanent case law, see Senate Judgments XHZ 90, 103, 106, 144, 1, 7 and 7 April 1992 - VI ZR 192 / 91 - VersR 1992, 960, 961).
Insofar as the appeal raises procedural complaints against the findings on the extent of the information provided, the Senate has examined these and found them to be inconsistent (§ 564 ZPO). Nevertheless, the information given to the patient was not sufficient in every respect. Continue reading