![]() Doctor's duty is to explain the possible consequences of non-treatment and benefits of treatment and leave the decision to the parent. If, a doctor diagnoses varicella in a child, the parent may choose to avail no treatment because of religious belief. Patient has got the right of self-determination. So, what is expected is that the doctor should provide information that a prudent or reasonable patient would expect to make a knowledgeable decision about the course of action to be taken in the presence of alternatives. For example, hardly any patient can go through the product information leaflet included in any drug pack and if some body does, it is unlikely that the drug is consumed. But, the list of risks and side effects cannot be exhaustive to the level of absurdity and impracticality. The information provided to a patient should include all material risks. Patients' perception of risk of a medical intervention is also highly individualistic, variable and unpredictable. On the other hand, an illiterate may say that “I do not understand anything, doctor, you decide what is best for me!” If a patient knowingly prefers not to get full information that attitude also needs to be respected as a part of patient's right to autonomy. It is not easy to answer the question, How much information is “adequate”? A netizen may expect and demand detailed information. To decide whether adequate information has been given, courts rely on this “Prudent Patient Test”. Prudent patient means a reasonable or average patient. Adequate information should be provided to a prudent patient during informed consent. ![]() In case of incapacitated persons, close family members or legal guardians can give consent. In case of children, consent must be obtained from a parent. Patient should be competent to give consent must be an adult and of sound mind.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |