“Don't worry my good man—you won't understand our medical talk”1: consent to treatment today
Patient: “ Do you really think this operation will make me see better, doctor?”
Doctor “ Oh yes—it is a very good operation with a 98% success rate!”
Patient “Oh good! What does that mean doctor?”
Doctor: “ Well . . . er . . .How long have you got? . . .And how much do you really want to know? . . .”
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less”. (Alice Through The Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll)
It wasn't very long ago that, to the vast majority of ophthalmologists, “consent” implied a brief discussion about a proposed procedure and the signing of a form by the doctor and the patient. How the world has changed! Today the issue of consent is highly topical: daily, articles in the national press raise issues considered irrelevant perhaps only five years ago. Litigation, commonplace for the American practitioner, is in the United Kingdom rapidly being seen as an inevitable consequence of medical practice. Doctors are often shocked to discover that legal actions can not only be brought for “Malpractice” or “Negligence” but also where the doctor has carried out the procedure well but has failed to warn of a small risk that in fact occurs.
How much information should a doctor give?
Times have changed indeed. Take for example the 1954 case of Hatcher v Black.2 Here, a BBC broadcaster went to Bart's suffering from a toxic thyroid gland for which an operation was recommended. She asked if it posed any risks to her voice and was reassured. However, as a result of damage to a nerve during the operation she could no longer speak properly. The distinguished Lord Justice Denning stated;
“What should the doctor tell his patient? …
