Patient Autonomy CASES
In English medical law, patient autonomy is the principle that a person with capacity is entitled to make their own decisions about medical treatment, including refusing treatment, even where others consider the decision unwise.
Definition and principles
Patient autonomy reflects respect for personal dignity and self-determination. It requires clinicians to involve patients in decisions affecting their bodies and health and to respect the choices they make.
Autonomy is closely linked to the law on consent. Treatment given without valid consent may be unlawful, and may give rise to claims in negligence and, in some situations, battery.
Informed consent
For autonomy to be meaningful, consent must be informed. Clinicians must take reasonable care to ensure the patient is aware of material risks of proposed treatment and of reasonable alternatives, including the option of no treatment, where relevant.
Capacity and decision-making
Autonomy depends on capacity. Where an adult lacks capacity, decisions must be made in their best interests under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, taking account of their wishes, feelings, values, and beliefs. Capacity may fluctuate and must be assessed in relation to the specific decision at the time it is needed.
Limits and practical application
Autonomy is not absolute in every situation. For example, urgent treatment may be provided where a patient lacks capacity and delay would cause serious harm. However, where a patient with capacity refuses treatment, including life-sustaining treatment, that refusal should ordinarily be respected.
Practical importance
Understanding patient autonomy helps clinicians communicate risks and options properly and supports lawful, patient-centred care, reducing disputes and complaints.
Home » Patient Autonomy
Mrs Sidaway underwent cervical spine surgery and suffered partial paralysis, a recognised but small risk of the procedure. She claimed her surgeon negligently failed to warn of this risk. The House of Lords held that, applying the Bolam test, there was no negligence and rejected a general doctrine of informed...
Mrs Montgomery, a diabetic woman of small stature, was not warned by her obstetrician about the 9-10% risk of shoulder dystocia during vaginal delivery. Her son suffered severe disabilities during birth. The Supreme Court held doctors must inform patients of material risks, departing from the Bolam test for disclosure of...
Miss Chester underwent spinal surgery without being warned of a 1-2% risk of nerve damage. The risk materialised, causing partial paralysis. Although she could not prove she would never have had surgery, the House of Lords held the surgeon liable, modifying conventional causation principles to protect patient autonomy and the...