informed consent CASES

In English law, informed consent refers to a patient’s legal right to be given sufficient information about a proposed medical treatment to make a voluntary and informed decision about whether to proceed.

Definition and principles

Informed consent requires that a patient is told about the nature and purpose of the treatment, the material risks involved, any reasonable alternatives, and the likely consequences of refusing treatment. The information must be presented in a way the patient can understand, taking into account their circumstances, concerns, and capacity.

Common examples

Issues commonly arise where a patient is not warned of a significant risk that later materialises, where alternatives are not discussed, or where consent is obtained without adequate time or explanation. Consent may also be invalid where it is assumed, rushed, or based on incomplete or misleading information.

Key cases

Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital: earlier approach focusing on medical practice in disclosure.

Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board: established the patient-centred test of material risk and confirmed the importance of patient autonomy.

Chester v Afshar: confirmed that failure to warn of a material risk can give rise to liability even where the risk was unavoidable.

Legal implications

A failure to obtain informed consent may amount to negligence even if the treatment itself was carried out competently. Claimants may recover damages where they can show that, if properly informed, they would have declined or delayed the treatment and avoided the injury.

Practical importance

Informed consent is central to modern medical law, reinforcing respect for patient autonomy and shared decision-making. It has significant implications for clinical practice, documentation, and communication between healthcare professionals and patients.