Introduction
Informed consent is a fundamental need for healthcare organizations. It helps to establish competence in decision-making and also ascertain awareness of the conditions surrounding the interaction. Patients are accorded privileges of treatment acceptance and denial through consent. The implication is that the healthcare providers have to educate the patient on the merits and limitations of their medical situation and intervention approach. The selected case for this research paper is Canterbury v. Spence (1972), which depicted a violation of patient consent and resulted in lawsuit against the healthcare practitioner.
Case Background
The case involved the plaintiff, Canterbury, who was 19 years old and had undergone laminectomy. The defendant in the case was Dr. Spence, a neurosurgeon. Spence argued that the surgical procedure performed by Dr. Spence had resulted in complications that were not discussed during the signing of the consent form (Justia US Law, 2023). After the surgery, the plaintiff suffered from medical complications that resulted in paralysis, which she had not been enlightened as a possibility. The plaintiff accused the doctor of failure to provide proper information disclosure on the risk of being paralyzed despite the risk rate being approximately one percent.
Court Proceedings and Decision
The case was forwarded to the US Court of Appeals in Columbia in 1972. The facts of the case were presented with the narration of 1969 events where the patient had sought treatment from a neurosurgeon in 1969 regarding severe neck and back pains. After conducting a myelogram, the doctor in charge discovered a ruptured disc and thus claimed the intervention was laminectomy. The patient signed for the procedure on the consent form, which later resulted in a deteriorated health condition and paralysis. The district Circuit held that the doctor had failed to obtain effective patient’s informed consent to the procedure. Adequate disclosure of the risks was not presented to Canterbury, and thus, a lack of meaningful opportunity to understand the medical intervention was absent.
Reasoning
The principle of autonomy was presented as a fundamental privilege for patients. The patients had the privilege to make decisions based on information regarding their medical situation. The physicians had the right to educate the patients on the risks and benefits of proposed procedures. Besides, the physicians had to ascertain patients understood the information disclosed clearly to ascertain competence in decision-making on the procedure. The court found out that paralysis was a likelihood outcome of the procedure performed on the plaintiff by Dr. Spence. Further, the healthcare professional did not enlighten the patient on other prevalent alternatives for intervention. Finally, it was revealed that Canterbury did not get an opportunity he could decline the procedure based on the disclosure of information.
Elements of Informed Consent
One of the prime elements of informed consent is disclosure. Healthcare providers have should ensure that the patients are aware of the risks and merits of the medical procedures denial and acceptance respectively. Besides, the healthcare professionals must disclose to the patient all the alternative interventions in a given health concern (Pozgar, 2020). The other prime element of informed consent is based on comprehension. Healthcare providers must ascertain that the patients understand the disclosed information and thus can make competent decisions. Voluntariness is the final element which makes informed consent. It implies that the patient’s decision should not be coerced into agreeing or rejecting the procedures.
Conclusion
In summary, the case showed lack of informed consent since the healthcare professional did not adhere to disclosure of information. Dr. Spence did not inform Canterbury on the probable risks of the procedure and thus the patient was not in a meaningful position to make a decision. Due to lack of clear understanding of the risks and benefits of the procedure and alternative medication approaches, the patient was not in a competent situation to sign consent. The case highlights the role of healthcare providers in ensuring that informed consent is observed while dealing with patients in medication procedures and interactions.
References
Justia US Law. (2023). Canterbury v. Spence, No. 22099 (D.C. Cir. 1972). Justia Law. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/22099/22099.html
Pozgar, G. D. (2020). Legal and ethical essentials of health care administration. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
write