Informed consent is a cornerstone of medical ethics and patient autonomy. It ensures that before patients agree to a medical procedure or treatment, they are fully aware of its benefits, risks, and alternatives. When a patient suffers harm during a medical procedure, one of the key questions in determining liability is whether they were adequately informed about the risks involved.
Did the healthcare provider fully disclose potential complications? Did the patient understand the information and voluntarily consent to the treatment?
Determining whether a medical provider obtained informed consent can be a key component of medical malpractice cases. This article will explore informed consent in a medical malpractice cases.
What is Informed Consent?
Before undergoing a medical procedure, ethically and legally, you as a patient have a right to understand all the risks and benefits of a procedure. If a physician does not obtain this consent and performs a treatment anyway, you might have legal grounds to file a medical malpractice lawsuit.
Informed Consent in Illinois
In Illinois, healthcare providers are held to a “reasonable” standard, meaning Illinois doctors must tell a patient what a reasonable doctor would tell the same patient under the same or similar circumstances. They are not required to tell the patient every possible risk of a procedure, but they must inform a patient of a risk if a reasonable doctor would do so.
What Constitutes Informed Consent?
- Disclosure of Information — The healthcare provider must explain the proposed procedure, including the diagnosis, treatment plan, and expected patient outcomes. This should include the benefits and potential risks, complications, and side effects, even if they are rare.
- Understanding — The patient must have the capacity to understand the information provided.
- Voluntary Decision — The patient must consent voluntarily, without coercion, manipulation, or undue pressure. They should feel free to ask questions and decide based on their values, preferences, and understanding of the situation.
- Competence — The patient must be mentally and emotionally capable of making the decision, meaning they must be legally competent to consent.
- Documentation — Once informed consent is obtained, it is typically documented in writing, usually in the form of a signed consent form. The form is then included in the patient’s medical records, indicating that the patient was informed and agreed to the procedure.
Proving Medical Malpractice Due to Failure to Receive Informed Consent
Informed consent is both a legal and ethical requirement. When not properly obtained, it can form the basis for claims in medical malpractice cases, particularly when a patient is harmed due to a lack of knowledge about the risks involved. In a malpractice trial that hinges on informed consent, the plaintiff’s attorney is tasked with proving:
- There was a doctor-patient relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant.
- The physician did not have informed consent, which can be proven by a lack of a signed waiver, witness testimony, or the plaintiff’s testimony.
- Proof of harm and the plaintiff’s resulting injuries.
- A connection between the plaintiff’s injuries and the physician’s failure to obtain informed consent.
What Would a Reasonable Physician Have Disclosed?
One key component of proving failure to obtain informed consent relies on the principle of reasonableness. In a medical malpractice trial, the plaintiff must prove that the physician did not disclose a risk that a reasonable doctor would have informed the patient about.
Medical experts are generally important witnesses for both the plaintiff and defendant in these trials, arguing that a competent doctor would or would not have disclosed a specific risk or outcome. Ultimately, the plaintiff must prove that the subject risk the defendant doctor neglected to disclose to the plaintiff is a risk that a reasonable doctor would have disclosed to the plaintiff in the same or similar circumstances.
Would a Reasonable Individual Have Elected to Undergo the Procedure?
Another aspect of proving informed consent was not obtained has to do with whether a reasonable person, having been informed of the risks of a procedure, would agree to go through with it. In other words, if the risk was disclosed, would a patient with the same medical history and health condition as the plaintiff have changed their mind about undergoing a particular procedure?
The Role of Waivers and Consent Forms
Waivers and consent forms are legal documents that inform patients of the benefits and risks of a procedure. Patients must sign them to acknowledge that they were informed of these risks and benefits and wish to proceed with the procedure. Sometimes, a signed medical waiver might prevent an informed consent lawsuit in a medical malpractice case. However, it is important to note that a patient’s signature on a waiver or form is not automatically considered evidence of informed consent.
Turn to Pullano & Siporin if You Have Questions About Informed Consent in Medical Malpractice Cases
If you have questions about informed consent or believe you may have been a victim of medical malpractice, it’s essential to seek expert legal advice. At Pullano & Siporin, we specialize in helping clients navigate the complexities of medical malpractice cases, including issues related to informed consent.
Our experienced team of lawyers will guide you through the process, assess the details of your case, and ensure that your rights are protected. We’re here to help you understand your options and fight for the justice and compensation you deserve.
Contact us for a consultation.
