true consent Vs informed consent
Hi !!!
I'm confused! Can anyone help? My understanding is that in english law consent given by a patient (to their doctor for treatment) must be gained else a charge of negligence can be made by the patient against the doctor. The information that the doctor gives can contain as much information as the doctor feels is appropriate in that the doctor decides what the patient needs to know. In health care it is common practice to provide informed consent in that the patient decides on what he wants to know so you give the patient both the positives and negatives for example of the possible outcomes of a procedure. I am struggelling to understand the difference between true consent in english law and informed consent set out as health care policy (? ethical practice rather than legal). I believe that a case that examins this is chatterton vs Gerson Lord Justic Bristow making conclusion from the case again I struggle to make sense of the outcomes. I am sure there is a reason as to why english law does not recognise informed consent? Any insights answers welcome but please remember I am a lay person when it comes to law so the simpler the explaination the better!!!
Hi,Unfortunately I
Hi,
Unfortunately I personally do not know anything about this particular area of the law. However I think that one of my colleagues will try to give you some form of answer to this shortly.
I am a Legal Advisor employed by Sarginsons Law and specialise in Civil Litigation matters. I deal with disputes between individuals and businesses including Landlord and Tenant issues, debt recovery and property disputes.
Telephone 02476 553181
You are correct in saying
You are correct in saying that a patient will be treated as having sufficient information if he/she understands in broad terms the nature of the treatment. This is the judgement of Chatterton v Gerson to which you refer.
The patient must be given the crucial facts however and should be told of all viable treatments. See Birch v University College London Hospital - a 2008 case.
The law adopts this approach in my view as a matter of social policy. If doctors were under a duty to explain every last nuance of the proposed treatment this might inhibit both the doctor's willingness to perform the procedure and the patient's willingness to accept it
Thank you. This is really
Thank you. This is really helpful and makes sense to me know.
Most greatful