摘要：Taking the facts of the case McLean v. Weir et al. this paper analyzes in detail the ap proach of two courts, the British Columbia Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, to what is needed to avoid malpractice in, and obtain 'informed' consent to, diagnostic medical procedure, in this case angiography. The strengths and weaknesses of the various tests for scope of disclosure of information to the patient and for causation, which could be adopted by the law, are discussed. The author concludes by noting some of the problems which are yet to be resolved.
