Informed Consent
From the book "Law for the Medical Profession in Australia
Second Edition by Andrew Dix BA LLB (Syd), Michael Errington BA
LLB (Syd) LLM (Lond), Kevin Nicholson BA LLB (Syd) LLM (Camb) Rod
Powe LLB (Hons)Tasmania at [505]
The requirements for valid consent to a medical process
[505]Generally. Merely because a patient has agreed to a proposed
course of action does not, of itself, mean that the patient has
validly consented. An abstract consent is not sufficient. To
be effective, the consent of the patient must:
(1) be freely and voluntarily given
[506] - [507]; (2) the doctor must fully inform and cover the
procedure to be performed [508]-[509]; (3) the information to
the patient must inform the patient as to who is to perform the
proposed
procedure [510]; (b) Informed consent must be given by a patient
who is competent (capable) of consenting [511-[531]; and (5)
be informed to some degree [532].. If a doctor performs a process
without
informed consent this can constitute Trespass.
and at [534]..'Trespass', with a central reference on direct,
unauthorised interference, is
a generic term for several causes of action, the most relevant
in the present context being 'assault' and 'battery'.
and at
[536] A duty to disclose …A litigant would have to show that
inherent in the duty of care was an obligation on the practitioner
to provide
certain information and, further, that if that information had
been given to the patient, on the balance of probabilities, the
patient
would not have consented to the procedure being carried out ", "[537] Disclosure of inherent risks and complications…"
|