Medical Malpractice: No Need for Informed Consent

by Kristen White Blogger According to Cornell University School of Law, Legal Information Institute, the term, informed consent, is quoted as meaning; “an agreement to do something or to allow something to happen, made with complete knowledge of all relevant facts such as the risks involved or any available alternatives. For example, a patient may give informed consent to medical treatment only after a health care professional has disclosed all possible risks involved in accepting or rejecting the treatment.”

So simply put, informed consent is the process of disclosing information to the patient with respect to the risks associated with a treatment or procedure and getting the patient’s agreement to the medical procedure or treatment. Where the doctor or medical professional does not receive informed consent from the patient and the patient would not have opted or chosen the treatment had he or she been aware of the associated risks, the patient may be able to sue the medical professional for medical malpractice.

However, there are some circumstances that do not require a patient’s informed consent, these can be called the exception to the informed consent rule:

Emergencies – in any emergency there is no time available for a medical professional to describe the risks involved and it is expected that the doctor must act quickly in order to save the life. Thus, in this instance, a patient cannot sue for medical malpractice based on lack of informed consent. This applies whether or not the patient would have allowed the treatment or procedure. It applies to first responders to a medical emergency and to off-duty doctors or medical personnel who render help or medical assistance to someone in need; in this instance the doctor or medical personnel’s actions without informed consent of the patient will not amount to medical malpractice.

Emotionally fragile patients – in cases where a doctor knows that a patient is so distressed that he or she will refuse the needed treatment, the doctor may not be required to get the patient’s informed consent. For example, if a brain tumor is life threatening but any normal surgery procedure runs the risk of paralysis to the patient, it may be appropriate for the doctor to be vague in his or her description of the risks involved. Further, if disclosing too many details or too much information about a necessary procedure could result in making an already frail patient sick with anxiety, the doctor may be able to withhold some of the information for the benefit of the patient. Therefore, a doctor can decide how much information to disclose based on the particular effect the giving of such information would have on the patient. The doctor’s decision to not disclose information will be suited to the type of patient he or she is dealing with. However, a doctor must be able to justify clearly the reasons why he or she decided not to disclose the risks of the procedure or treatment.

For more in depth information with respect to the parameters of informed consent, it is wise to be looking for Anchorage medical malpractice attorney.

For medical malpractice matters the author recommends Crowsonlaw.Com

Sponsor Ads

• Ad Space Available - Rent it Now!

Created on Dec 31st 1969 18:00. Viewed 0 times.

Comments