The Application of the Principle of Informed Consent in the Sports Contexts

Nurul Aqmal Roslan, Jady @ Zaidi Hassim

Abstract


ABSTRACT
Every player who participates in a game is deemed to have given their consent for any possible risk of injury. The aggression that causes the injury must be a legitimate sports activity and not performed beyond the norm of ordinary sports. This principle is known as implied consent. However, there is another type of consent that is more concrete and clearer compare to implied consent which normally applies in medical law known as informed consent. By using doctrinal and qualitative method, this article aims to analyse and discuss the principle of implied consent and informed consent and suggesting how informed consent can be applied in sports. Hence, the study found that, although there were some differences in the application of informed consent in the medical field and sports, the principal of informed consent is applicable in sports contexts.
Keyword: Sports law, injury in sports, consent in sports, implied consent, informed consent
ABSTRAK
Setiap permain yang menyertai mana-mana kejohanan akan dianggap telah memberi kerelaan bagi setiap risiko kecederaan yang mungkin berlaku. Kekasaran yang menyebabkan kecederaan tersebut mestilah satu perbuatan bersukan yang sah dan bukannya perbuatan yang luar daripada perbuatan yang biasa dilakukan didalam sukan. Principal ini digelar sebagai kerelaan tersirat. Walaubagaimanapun, terdapat satu lagi bentuk kerelaan yang lebih terang dan jelas jika dibandingkan dengan kerelaan tersirat, dimana kerelaan ini diguna pakai didalam undang-undang perubatan iaitu kerelaan bermaklumat. Dengan menggunakan kaedah doktrin dan qualitatif, artikel ini akan menganalisa dan membincangkan prinsipal kerelaan tersirat dan kerelaan bermaklumat dan mencadangkan bagaimana kerelaan bermaklumat boleh diguna pakai di dalam konteks sukan. Kesimpulannya, kajian ini mendapati bahawa walaupun ada sedikit perbezaan pengguna pakai kerelaan bermaklumat di dalam bidang perubatan dan sukan, prinsipal kerelaan bermaklumat boleh diguna pakai didalam konteks sukan.
Kata Kunci: Undang-undang Sukan, kecederaan di dalam sukan, kerelaan di dalam sukan, kerelaan tersirat, kerelaan bermaklumat


Full Text:

PDF

References


REFERENCES

Charles Haray, Aggressive Play or Criminal Assault - An In Depth Look at Sports Violence and Criminal Liability. 25 Colum. J.L. & Arts. 2001.

Hazel Hartley. Sport, Physical Recreation and the Law. Routledge. 2009.

Jeffrey Standen. The Manly Sports: The Problematic Use of Criminal Law to Regulate Sports Violance. Journal

of Criminal Law and Criminology. 99(3). 2009.

John H. Kerr. Rethinking Aggression and Violence in Sport. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. 2005.

Mohamed Salah injury: Over half a million people ask for Sergio Ramos to be punished for challenge on Liverpool winger. Talk Sport. https://talksport.com/football/378302/mohamed-salah-injury-over-half-million- people-ask-sergio-ramos-be-punished-challenge/ .

Nick Miller. World Cup stunning moments: Luis Suárez bites Giorgio Chiellini in 2014. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2018/mar/27/world-cup- stunning-moments-luis-suarez-bites-giorgio-chiellini-in-2014.

Puteri Nemie, Puteri Shanaz. The Medical Profession, Societal Demands and Developing Legal Standards. Malayan Law Journal Articles. 2014.

Robin Bainer. Injuring Salah in Champions League final was a Ramos masterstroke – Chiellini. Goal.com, https://www.goal.com/en/news/injuring-salah-in-champions- league-final-was-a-ramos/tafrysaxrw7l1xpe1v1ruewrj.

Simon Gardiner. Sport Law in the United Kingdom. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. 2014.

Yuhanif Yusof; Anisah Che Ngah; Latifah Amin. Atanomi Pesakit-Subjek Melalui Izin Bermaklumat Dalam Penyelidikan Klinikal. Kanun Jurnal Undang-undang Malaysia. 23 Kanun (2). 2011.

CASES

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 2 All ER 118, [1957] 1 WLR 582.

Foo Fio Na v Dr. Soo Fook Mun & Anor [2007] 1 MLJ 593.

R v Barness [2004] EWCA Crim 3246.

R v Brown [1994] 1 A.C. 212; [1993] 2 W.L.R. 556.

R v Cey (1998) 48 CCC (3d) 480.

Rogers v Whitaker [1992] 175 CLR 479.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


 

 

 

e-ISSN : 2550-1704