The concept of informed consent specific to medical research and treatment is still alien to many medical researchers and practitioners and to millions of Indians. The doctor-patient relationship in India is governed more by trust where the doctor is the authoritative person. Therefore, the benefit of informed consent does not reach all patients in day-to-day medical practice. To complicate the issue, the Indian law is not specific about the age at which a person can give valid consent. The Indian Penal Code is silent about the legal validity of consent given by persons between 12 and 18 years of age. Similarly, the age at which the 'Right to Confidentiality' begins is yet to be defined either by the statute or by the courts. Hence, there is a need for a clear statutory provision to remove the anomalies and ambiguities regarding the age of consent to undergo invasive therapeutic or investigative procedures, participate in clinical trials, as well as define the age at which a person's right to medical confidentiality begins.
The doctrine of informed consent has the effect of allowing the mentally competent adult patient to exercise individual choice in any proposed medical treatment. The ethical principles primarily inherent in this doctrine would be the principles of autonomy and beneficence. However, it is argued in this essay that the concept and meaning of autonomy might be vastly different between western and eastern communities. Consequently the doctrine of informed consent will lead to a different meaning in these different societies. The essay also raises the implication of transplanting legal doctrines into societies which might not be fully prepared to implement the ideal contained in the doctrine of informed consent.
The author reviews the legal theory and practice of the requirements for informed consent. He uses a discussion of relevant cases and judgements from courts in the UK, USA, Australia and Malaysia to illustrate apparently conflicting attitudes exemplified by these cases. From this he aims to form some consensus in their application to everyday practice.
Informed consent [IC] is a recognized socio-legal obligation for the medical profession. The doctrine of IC involves the law, which aims to ensure the lawfulness of health assistance and tends to reflect the concept of autonomy of the person requiring and requesting medical and/or surgical treatment. Recent changes in the health care delivery system and the complex sociological settings, in which it is practiced, have resulted in an increase in judicial activity and medical negligence lawsuits for physicians. While IC is a well-established practice, it often fails to meet its stated purpose. In the common law, the standard of medical care to disclose risks has been laid down by the Bolam test- a familiar concept to most physicians, but it has been challenged recently in many jurisdictions. This paper aims to discuss some important judgments in cases of alleged medical negligence so as to familiarize doctors regarding their socio-legal obligations. We also propose to discuss some factors that influence the quality of IC in clinical practice.
The right of a person to control his body is a concept that has long been recognized in Malaysia under the law of torts. The purpose of requiring informed consent is to preserve that right in medical decision-making. Informed Consent is a relatively new concept in medical litigation cases. However in the late 1990's, it has become one of the important claims under negligence made against the doctor for failure to disclose relevant information to patients in respect of the treatment proposed. Whether Malaysia has begun to recognize patient's right to decision-making is yet to be seen. Furthermore the social-cultural relationship between doctors and patients had to be considered. In this respect, the researcher had conducted interviews with doctors and patients to gauge their reaction towards a shared process of decision-making, which is the central issue in the doctrine of informed consent. Findings suggest that in society where primary health care is the main thrust to achieve health for all, the possibility of recognition of the rights of patients to receive information before making decisions about treatment appears remote. The findings also underscore the importance of incorporating aspects of informed consent as part of providing quality service to patients.
Recognition and articulation of patient rights are core issues in the medical jurisprudence of most nations. While the nature of rights in medical care may vary from country to country, reflecting the idiosyncrasies of domestic law and health delivery, there are commonalities in this area of law that cut across borders. This paper presents five case studies in the patient rights area from Malaysia, Ireland, South Africa, Indonesia and the United States, respectively. The case discussions range from ongoing and fundamental concerns over broad patient rights issues, such as access to health care and informed consent, to rights concerns of those suffering from HIV/AIDS, to a novel consideration over ethical and legal issues concerning ownership of infant organs. It is the hope of the authors that individually, and collectively, the cases will provide helpful insights into this core area of medical law.
Optimal patient care varies considerably from place to place and is influenced by scientific as well as social developments. The purpose of this study was to investigate awareness and pertinent issues regarding informed consent among hospitalised patients and to determine lapses, in order to improve the standard of care.