Case 2: Schloendorff v Society of the New York Hospital 211 NY 125 1914
Facts________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff: Schloendorff
Defendant: Society of the New York Hospital
The plaintiff came to Society of the New York Hospital, January 1908, with a complaint of
some disorder relating to her stomach. She asked about the possible hospital charge and was
told that it is 7 Dollars a week.
After a few weeks of stay, Dr. Bartlett, the attending physician, discovered a fibroid tumor
and then consulted visiting surgeon, Dr. Stimson, who advised that the case warrants an
operation.
According to the plaintiff, the doctors told her that the lump characteristics cannot
be determined without performing an ether examination. She agreed with being
examined but made it clear that her intended purpose is only for examination and
there must be no operation.
The following day, the ether was administered, and the tumor was removed while she was still
unconscious.
Following the operation, a gangrene developed in her left arm requiring some of
her fingers to undergo amputation. Because of this suffering, she sought to charge
the hospital with liability for the wrong.
Background about the hospital
o Society of the New York Hospital is a charitable institution, with no capital
stock and does not distribute profits. The physicians and staffs working
under this hospital serve without pay.
o Patients who are more adequate to pay were required by law to pay 7
Dollars a week (amount insufficient to cover the cost of maintenance).
Issues______________________________________________________________
The plaintiff complained of trespass, not just negligence.
Whether or not the patient’s right to determine what shall be done with her own
body was violated / patient’s autonomy.
Whether or not the hospital is liable to the patient for the operation that was
performed.
Ruling________________________________________________________________
On violation of the patient’s right to determine what shall be done with her own
body:
Every human being of adult years and sound mind has the right to determine what
shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without
his patient’s consent commits an assault for which he is liable in damages.
Exception to this is during cases of emergency where patient is unconscious,
and where it is necessary to operate before consent can be obtained.
The defendant undertook to procure for the plaintiff the services of a physician. It
procured the services of Dr. Bartlett and Dr. Stimson.
In serving their patient, they violated her commands, the responsibility
is theirs, not the defendant’s.
On the liability of the hospital to the operation performed:
The hospital is not liable to the patient for the operation that was performed because a
hospital is does not have a master and servant relation (Schloendorff Doctrine). Hospitals
that serve as charitable institutions, and do not have a master and servant relation
with their physicians. The physicians work as independent contractors, thus, making
them only liable for their own wrongs to the patient whom they had undertaken to serve
Lessons______________________________________________________________
Physicians must have the ability to properly explain to their patients the procedures and
the reason therewith why it must be performed, before providing such service to the
patient. They must be able to discuss not only the nature of the procedure but also its
limitations and possibilities that may affect the patient’s health while performing such
operation. It is also good to remember that working as a physician under charitable
institutions, does not call for the patient to lose their right on deciding what to do with their
body and whether the procedures suggested for them is deemed necessary except,
therefore, if the case is an emergency.
