Quick Enquiry
Fill out our no hassle enquiry form and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.
Consent
Without consent the actions of a doctor would constitute trespass such as battery. In this case a criminal offence has been committed and damages can be awarded. The consent must be freely given and informed, though not necessarily in writing. With regular treatment consent may even be inferred. For consent to be valid the patient needs to be legally competent, and should in most cases give the consent personally. Exceptions are made for children under the age of 16.
Many consent forms will be standard documents drawn up by the NHS, usually to allow any procedure that is in a patient's best interests. This is to avoid problems such as in Williamson v. East London & City HA where the patient undergoing surgery for silicone implant leakage, was held not to have consented to a mastectomy. This was even though it was felt to be necessary to perform the procedure.
The issue of informed consent is given much thought in various jurisdictions. Currently in the UK Sidaway v. Bethlem Royal Hospital provides guidance. Here a 'Bolam' style test was applied in considering whether it was reasonable to make a patient aware of all possible outcomes, which of course include death. It was held to be sufficient to accord with accepted practice.
For emergency treatment it may not be possible to obtain valid consent, and if treatment is necessary to preserve life then the doctor is not liable for assault (Wilson v. Pringle).
One of the more controversial areas is where an adult refuses to consent to treatment that many people would consider sensible. For example, the case of administration of a blood transfusion to a practicing Jehovah's Witnesses. Here the right to determine your own course of action can be negated by a court's declaring you legally incompetent. - Re: C (Adult: Refusal of Medical Treatment).