There are ethical and legal reasons why doctors must adequately inform patients about proposed treatments or procedures, especially in regard to risks and dangers, and be satisfied that patients understand and consent to such measures. This arises principally out of respect for the autonomy of the patient. Second, if a doctor undertakes any procedure which involves touching the patient without consent, the doctor is guilty of an assault, or more precisely in legal terms, a battery, and an action in trespass may be brought against the doctor in a civil or a criminal court. Third, doctors who fail to adequately inform their patients about their condition, treatment options or material risks of treatment, may be sued on the grounds of negligence.
Consent may be obtained orally, in writing or be implied. The more major the proposed treatment, such as a surgical procedure or invasive investigation, the greater is the need that the patient be fully informed and the greater is the desirability that the patient's consent be attested to in writing. That consent be in writing is not a legal requirement.
The existence of a signed consent form does not constitute conclusive evidence of adequately informing a patient; consent forms are more usefully regarded as an important reminder that sufficient information be given for the consent to be valid and as prima facie evidence that the discussion took place. Traditionally, written consent need not be obtained when medications are prescribed, but the duty nevertheless to warn patients of significant side effects must not be overlooked.
0 comments:
Post a Comment