The Federal Patient Self Determination Act of 1990 requires hospitals to develop policies and procedures that recognize a patient’s right to accept or refuse medical treatment. In short, it means that medical professionals need to obtain informed consent from patients before doing any medical procedure. This is true except in cases of emergency where the patient is unconscious.
Today, prior to starting any treatment a three point process must be obtained from the patient. The first part is the disclosure and explanation to the patient, in language that the patient can understand, about the proposed procedure or treatment, its potential risks and benefits, and reasonable alternatives which may be available. The second part of the process involves: 1) ensuring that the patient understands what has been explained to him or her (to the best of the patient's intellectual capacity); 2) the patient accepting the risks; and 3) the patient giving his or her consent to undergo the procedure or treatment. Finally, the process must be documented.
This is complex and rife with decision making. Any missteps can result in medical malpractice.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Medical Malpractice, Patients Rights, Informed Consent
Every patient has the right to be informed about a medical procedure prior to consenting to the medical procedure.
Only in cases of emergency can a doctor perform surgery without the consent of a patient. This dates back to a judgment from 1914. Consent is a three-part process and if not handled properly could result in a medical malpractice lawsuit.
For instance a woman with lupus had to undergo needle biopsy of her kidney. After undergoing the procedure, she experienced complications resulting in perforation of her gall bladder that necessitated open cholecystectomy.
The woman sued on the basis that she would have chosen a renal biopsy if she had known it was an option.
The woman won the case because she had not given informed consent. All alternatives must be disclosed to the patient even though some may involve more hazards.
Only in cases of emergency can a doctor perform surgery without the consent of a patient. This dates back to a judgment from 1914. Consent is a three-part process and if not handled properly could result in a medical malpractice lawsuit.
For instance a woman with lupus had to undergo needle biopsy of her kidney. After undergoing the procedure, she experienced complications resulting in perforation of her gall bladder that necessitated open cholecystectomy.
The woman sued on the basis that she would have chosen a renal biopsy if she had known it was an option.
The woman won the case because she had not given informed consent. All alternatives must be disclosed to the patient even though some may involve more hazards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
