The stack of forms you sign before any medical treatment include one for informed consent, a key legal doctrine at the heart of the doctor-patient relationship. When consent is breached, a patient may seek damages for malpractice.
An experienced personal injury attorney can explain malpractice and how consent works in the medical environment. There are specific steps that physicians must take to educate and inform their patients prior to treatment.
What Informed Consent Actually Means
A core component of medical ethics, informed consent is a requirement for medical treatment. Physicians and other healthcare providers are required to provide patients with information needed to make a decision as well as receiving consent prior to the treatment. Signing a consent form is not enough. Educating and informing a patient includes:
- Explaining the diagnosis or condition being treated
- Describing the proposed treatment procedure, including risks involved
- Discussing anticipated benefits of the treatment
- Allowing the patient to decline treatment if desired
Signing a consent form is often not enough evidence in itself for a court challenge. The conversation between doctor and patient is the key event in proving consent in a court’s eyes.
How Washington D.C. Shaped the Legal Standard
The informed consent standard that we experience today was shaped by the 1972 landmark federal case, Canterbury vs. Spence, heard in the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. It involved a patient who was not told that their spinal surgery might result in paralysis before that outcome was realized.
The court rejected the argument that the physician’s duty was limited to the typical practice of the time. The judges decided that the practice was an insufficient standard, and that patients should receive information that shapes a truly informed decision. This created the “reasonable patient” standard and legal doctrine that requires patients to receive specific details of their proposed treatment.
Crossing From Consent to Malpractice
If a doctor performs a procedure or treatment without adequately explaining the risks, alternatives, and potential outcomes, it’s a failure to obtain informed consent. Malpractice can arise from botched procedures as well as from flawlessly-executed operations. If a surgeon failed to mention a foreseeable complication that would have changed the patient’s mind about going through with it, they may be held responsible for not obtaining informed consent.
The elements required to successfully prosecute a malpractice claim on those grounds include:
- That the treating physician had a duty to disclose the nature of the proposed treatment, alternatives, and risks involved
- That the physicians failed to adequately communicate that information
- The patient must prove that they would not have consented to the treatment if they had the right information or that harm suffered was not disclosed as a known risk of the treatment
Changes made to the treatment or surgery after informed consent was given can also create a malpractice claim. Physicians are expected to inform patients about potential changes in treatment that may be required, and to obtain consent for those changes when possible.
Exceptions to the Consent Requirement
There are exceptions to informed consent laws, including:
- medical emergencies when it’s not possible to obtain consent
- mental health crises that require immediate intervention to prevent serious injury
- when full disclosure of risks may trigger serious, harmful complications
Informed Consent Specifics in Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C. residents have an additional test of consent to determine whether the specific patient involved in the malpractice suit would have consented to the procedure if they were fully informed of the risks. This standard gives D.C. patients a stronger position than those in jurisdictions that use a purely objective standard.
If You Believe Informed Consent Was Inadequate
If you suffered a serious complication or negative outcome from a medical procedure and believe you were not adequately informed of the risks, Samuel Martin Law can help. The statute of limitations in Washington, D.C. is three years from the date of injury or when the harm and its cause were discovered. Call for a consultation to discuss your situation and get advice on legal options.