Consent to medical treatment is required by law because treatment in the absence of consent would constitute a battery, a trespass to the person.
The giving of consent provides the doctor with a defence to such an allegation.
But does this consent depend upon the patient knowing what the procedure entails ?
Can we, as traditionally, just tell the patient the name of the procedure, and no more ?
Or must we explain the risks ?
Does proper consent rely on the patient being advised of any « substantial risk », so that consent may be well informed, as the Department of Health's  guidelines suggest.
Mots-clés Pascal : Médecine légale, Consentement éclairé, Communication information, Information biomédicale, Malade, Homme, Anesthésiste, Royaume Uni, Europe
Mots-clés Pascal anglais : Legal medicine, Informed consent, Information communication, Biomedical information, Patient, Human, Anesthesiologist, United Kingdom, Europe
Notice produite par :
Inist-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique
Cote : 94-0494610
Code Inist : 002B30A09. Création : 199501.