Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Consent
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==Medicine== {{See also| Informed consent}} In medical law, consent is important to protect a medical practitioner from liability for harm to a patient arising from a procedure. There are [[Doe ex. rel. Tarlow v. District of Columbia|exemptions]], such as when the patient is unable to give consent.<ref name="sub"/> Also, a medical practitioner must explain the significant risks of a procedure or medication (those that might change the patient's mind about whether or not to proceed with the treatment) before the patient can give a binding consent. This was explored in Australia in ''Rogers v Whitaker''.<ref>{{cite AustLII|HCA|58|1992|litigants=Rogers v Whitaker |parallelcite=(1992) 175 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 479 |courtname=auto}}.</ref> If a practitioner does not explain a material risk that subsequently eventuates, then that is considered negligent.<ref>{{cite BAILII |litigants=[[Chester v Afshar]] |year=2004 |court=UKHL |num=41 |parallelcite= [2005] 1 [[Appeal Cases Law Reports|AC]] 134 |courtname=auto}}.</ref> These material risks include the loss of chance of a better result if a more experienced surgeon had performed the procedure.<ref>{{cite AustLII|HCA|55|1998|litigants=Chappel v Hart |parallelcite=(1998) 195 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 232 |courtname=auto}}.</ref> In the [[UK]], a [[Supreme Court of the United Kingdom|Supreme Court]] judgment<ref>{{cite BAILII |litigants=Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board |courtname=auto|juris=Scotland |court=UKSC |year=2015 |num=11 |parallelcite=[2015] [[Appeal Cases Law Reports|AC]] 1430}}.</ref> modernized the law on consent and introduced a patient-focused test to UK law: allowing the patient rather than the medical professionals to decide upon the level of risk they wish to take in terms of a particular course of action, given all the information available. This change reflects the Guidance of the General Medical Council on the requirement to consent patients, and removes the rule of medical paternalism.<ref>{{cite web|title=Supreme Court decision changes doctor-patient relationship forever - Balfour+Manson|url=https://www.balfour-manson.co.uk/news-plus-events/news/2015/03/mothers-landmark-court-win-changes-doctor-patient-relationship-forever/|website=www.balfour-manson.co.uk|access-date=2018-01-18|archive-date=2018-01-18|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180118182105/https://www.balfour-manson.co.uk/news-plus-events/news/2015/03/mothers-landmark-court-win-changes-doctor-patient-relationship-forever/|url-status=dead}}</ref>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)