Essential Features of Informed Consent

Any patient that could benefit from utilization of a specific medical procedure must provide informed consent for the performance of such a procedure. Yet the term informed consent refers to more than the simple act of granting permission to a physician for the act of performing a given procedure, in order to correct a given condition, as per personal injury lawyer in Brentwood.

Doctors must explain the possible risks, and make sure that the patients understand them.

A physician might have someone that has already undergone the procedure speak with the injured or ailing patient. Each physician must select one of 2 different approaches to the act of revealing the known risks.

What are the 2 different approaches?

• Sharing information on the sorts of risks that a competent doctor would disclose to patients
• Disclosing the realistic alternatives to the suggested test or operation.

How a doctor’s chosen approach could affect a possible malpractice case

Any list that had copied the disclosures of a competent doctor would get studied and judged by an expert. A listing of realistic alternatives would present the patient’s perspective, and would not require the opinions that might be offered during expert testimony.

A doctor that had presented the alternatives could not be sued for malpractice, unless that alternative procedure turned out to be a mistake.

Situations where a physician does not need to receive a patient’s informed consent

During the short span of time before the same physician plans to carry out an emergency procedure

During the time that could pass before a doctor’s introduction of a life-saving treatment: That treatment could be a surgical procedure, or it could be an attempt to restore the action of the lungs or the heart.

If a doctor has not had time for obtaining informed consent, he or she must explain to the patient the reason for the absence of information on the planned procedure’s risks.

If a patient did not understand the reason for the doctor’s silence, regarding a given procedure’s risks, that same patient might ask about receiving a second opinion. It would then be up to the consulted physician to decide whether or not it would be appropriate to allow time for introduction of a second opinion.

Doctors are not under any obligation to go along with a request for a second opinion. Still, if that same opinion would be coming from a highly respected physician, a doctor would probably allow it, as long as time permitted.

A doctor’s experience should indicate that a respected physician would offer the consulting patient a view that supported the earlier suggestion. Patients that had obtained the name of a respected physician would be more likely to be granted permission for going after another doctor’s opinion.

More to explorer

FAQs on Settlement of Injury Claim

If you’ve been injured in an accident, there’s a good chance that someone else’s negligence caused it. But how does this process