230k views
1 vote
Which of the following would be considered a valid informed consent by a court?

a. Dr. Ambrose tells her patient in advance about a dangerous procedure and the risk involved, and obtains the patient's informed consent in writing on a form that is signed by the patient.
b. Dr. Ambrose tells her patient in advance about a dangerous procedure and the risk involved, and obtains the patient's informed consent in writing on a form that is signed by the patient and witnessed by a third party.
c. Dr. Ambrose obtains her patient's oral informed consent, which is witnessed by a third party.
d. Dr. Ambrose tells her patient the procedure is mandatory.

User Lisandro
by
8.6k points

1 Answer

7 votes

Final answer:

A court would likely consider informed consent valid if it is provided in writing, detailing the procedure and associated risks, and if the patient's consent is voluntary and ideally, witnessed by a third party. Among the options, (b) involving a third-party witness is the most legally sound.

Step-by-step explanation:

Informed Consent in a Legal Context

Within a legal framework, particularly in healthcare settings, informed consent is a critical concept that empowers patients and protects their rights. Courts generally consider informed consent valid when the patient is provided with adequate information regarding the risks, benefits, and alternatives of a procedure, and when the patient voluntarily agrees to proceed. This consent should be documented in a way that confirms the patient's understanding and agreement.

Among the options presented, (a) Dr. Ambrose tells her patient in advance about a dangerous procedure and the risk involved, and obtains the patient's informed consent in writing on a form that is signed by the patient, and (b) Dr. Ambrose tells her patient in advance about a dangerous procedure and the risks involved, and obtains the patient's informed consent in writing on a form that is signed by the patient and witnessed by a third party, both could be considered valid informed consent by a court. However, including a third-party witness, as in option (b), adds an additional layer of verification to the process. Option (c) Dr. Ambrose obtains her patient's oral informed consent, which is witnessed by a third party, may not be preferred legally because there is less evidence of the details of what was communicated. Option (d) Dr. Ambrose tells her patient the procedure is mandatory, is an explicit violation of the principle of autonomy, and would not be considered valid informed consent.

Therefore, the most comprehensive and legally sound form of informed consent is one that is written, explained in advance, detailing the procedure and associated risks, ensuring that the patient's consent is voluntary, and ideally witnessed by a third party.

User ThrawnCA
by
8.7k points