Part 1 - 3 of the "Consent" Article Series.
Part 1 - 3 of the 'Consent' Article Series.
(Part 1 of the 'Consent' Article Series)
In a recent study conducted by the University of Oxford it has been revealed that two common painkillers (Ibuprofen and Diclofenac) increase the risk of heart problems.
Dosage is a key factor in calculating the risk. People taking a short course for headaches, for example, should not be concerned. The risk increases with the dosage and time taken. People on high doses over a prolonged period of time are most at risk.
The study focussed on people on high dose prescriptions of around 150mg of Diclofenac or 2,400mg Ibuprofen each day. The risks were increased further in smokers and overweight patients.
The calculated risk discovered by the study could still be considered as reasonable by patients who would otherwise have their quality of life ruined without a daily dose of painkillers (for example in patients with Arthritis.)
With the drugs the risk of heart attack increases from 8 cases in 1,000 to 11 in 1,000.
"The judgement has to be made by patients," said Professor Colin Baigent, lead researcher for the study.
In the event that a patient is not reliably informed by their doctors on their treatment they cannot give valid consent. They will not be able to weigh up the benefits and risks and decide whether that treatment is right for them.
(Part 2 of the 'Consent' Article Series)
When discussing treatment with your healthcare provider they should warn you of any known side effects prior to prescription or consent. You should be provided with enough information to make an informed decision on whether that treatment is right for you.
In most cases you are legally allowed to refuse any treatment offered to you under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. You must be aware of the benefits and risks of any treatment and have the mental capacity to make decisions on your own.
For consent (or refusal) of treatment you must:
Be able to give your decision voluntarily (this means without being pressured by healthcare practitioners, friends or family.)
Have been appropriately informed about your treatment.
You can refuse treatment even if it would result in your death or the death of your unborn child.
Many people diagnosed with long term illnesses make a 'Living Will' which outlines which treatments they consent to or refuse and the circumstances where their advance decisions are valid. This means that if their illness renders them unable to communicate their wishes with those around them their decisions can still be followed by the people providing their care.
When it comes to decisions regarding life-sustaining treatment then any advance decisions in a 'Living Will' must:
Be in writing.
Signed in the presence of a witness.
Include a clear statement that their decisions are to apply to a specific type of treatment even if your life is at risk.
In the event that you were not informed about your treatment, its risks and benefits your healthcare practitioner could be deemed to have acted negligently. Your consent to any treatment is not valid if you don't know what it involves or what the risks are. You should be informed about the most common known risks and benefits of your treatment.
The information provided to you cannot cover every eventuality but in many cases you should be told about known and documented risks even if they are rare and have a very low chance of occurring in your circumstances.
If you have suffered known side effects of your treatment but were not informed of those risks until after the fact then whoever was providing your care may have acted negligently and you may be entitled to compensation.
You may also be entitled to compensation because of hospital negligence if you have suffered as a result of what is known as 'avoidable harm.' This refers to illness or injury that could have been avoided were it not for the negligence of others.
(Part 3 of the 'Consent' Article Series)
There are situations where people are legally allowed to make decisions on the behalf of others; for example in the case of parents, carers and legal guardians.
But there are circumstances where children can make decisions entirely for themselves without the consent of their parents or guardians. This gives them the power to legally consent to or decline treatment. This can apply to children under 16.
This may be a part of the law you are already familiar with. But below are a few points you may not already know about.
Children under the age of 16 can consent or refuse treatment if they have enough information and intelligence to do so.
This is known as being 'Gillick Competent.'
In the event of a child being deemed as Gillick Competent additional consent from a parent or guardian is not required.
A court can overrule a Gillick Competent child's refusal for treatment if their decision could result in death or permanent serious injury.
Courts can also overrule a parent's refusal of treatment on behalf of their child they feel it is in the child's best interests to do so.
In an emergency where waiting for consent would pose a risk treatment can proceed without consent.
the Gillick competent child needs to be informed of all the risks of treatment in the same way an adult would need to be informed. If a Gillick competent child was not informed of the risks and something happened during treatment (for example at hospital) then they might have a case of hospital negligence.
In hospital negligence cases where a Gillick competent child is involved it would need to be established that the child was not made aware of the risks or side effects of their treatment by their healthcare provider. In the same way that a consenting adult would need to establish that they were not warned of similar risks.
(Part 1 of the 'Consent' Article Series)
In a recent study conducted by the University of Oxford it has been revealed that two common painkillers (Ibuprofen and Diclofenac) increase the risk of heart problems.
Dosage is a key factor in calculating the risk. People taking a short course for headaches, for example, should not be concerned. The risk increases with the dosage and time taken. People on high doses over a prolonged period of time are most at risk.
The study focussed on people on high dose prescriptions of around 150mg of Diclofenac or 2,400mg Ibuprofen each day. The risks were increased further in smokers and overweight patients.
The calculated risk discovered by the study could still be considered as reasonable by patients who would otherwise have their quality of life ruined without a daily dose of painkillers (for example in patients with Arthritis.)
With the drugs the risk of heart attack increases from 8 cases in 1,000 to 11 in 1,000.
"The judgement has to be made by patients," said Professor Colin Baigent, lead researcher for the study.
In the event that a patient is not reliably informed by their doctors on their treatment they cannot give valid consent. They will not be able to weigh up the benefits and risks and decide whether that treatment is right for them.
(Part 2 of the 'Consent' Article Series)
When discussing treatment with your healthcare provider they should warn you of any known side effects prior to prescription or consent. You should be provided with enough information to make an informed decision on whether that treatment is right for you.
In most cases you are legally allowed to refuse any treatment offered to you under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. You must be aware of the benefits and risks of any treatment and have the mental capacity to make decisions on your own.
For consent (or refusal) of treatment you must:
Be able to give your decision voluntarily (this means without being pressured by healthcare practitioners, friends or family.)
Have been appropriately informed about your treatment.
You can refuse treatment even if it would result in your death or the death of your unborn child.
Many people diagnosed with long term illnesses make a 'Living Will' which outlines which treatments they consent to or refuse and the circumstances where their advance decisions are valid. This means that if their illness renders them unable to communicate their wishes with those around them their decisions can still be followed by the people providing their care.
When it comes to decisions regarding life-sustaining treatment then any advance decisions in a 'Living Will' must:
Be in writing.
Signed in the presence of a witness.
Include a clear statement that their decisions are to apply to a specific type of treatment even if your life is at risk.
In the event that you were not informed about your treatment, its risks and benefits your healthcare practitioner could be deemed to have acted negligently. Your consent to any treatment is not valid if you don't know what it involves or what the risks are. You should be informed about the most common known risks and benefits of your treatment.
The information provided to you cannot cover every eventuality but in many cases you should be told about known and documented risks even if they are rare and have a very low chance of occurring in your circumstances.
If you have suffered known side effects of your treatment but were not informed of those risks until after the fact then whoever was providing your care may have acted negligently and you may be entitled to compensation.
You may also be entitled to compensation because of hospital negligence if you have suffered as a result of what is known as 'avoidable harm.' This refers to illness or injury that could have been avoided were it not for the negligence of others.
(Part 3 of the 'Consent' Article Series)
There are situations where people are legally allowed to make decisions on the behalf of others; for example in the case of parents, carers and legal guardians.
But there are circumstances where children can make decisions entirely for themselves without the consent of their parents or guardians. This gives them the power to legally consent to or decline treatment. This can apply to children under 16.
This may be a part of the law you are already familiar with. But below are a few points you may not already know about.
Children under the age of 16 can consent or refuse treatment if they have enough information and intelligence to do so.
This is known as being 'Gillick Competent.'
In the event of a child being deemed as Gillick Competent additional consent from a parent or guardian is not required.
A court can overrule a Gillick Competent child's refusal for treatment if their decision could result in death or permanent serious injury.
Courts can also overrule a parent's refusal of treatment on behalf of their child they feel it is in the child's best interests to do so.
In an emergency where waiting for consent would pose a risk treatment can proceed without consent.
the Gillick competent child needs to be informed of all the risks of treatment in the same way an adult would need to be informed. If a Gillick competent child was not informed of the risks and something happened during treatment (for example at hospital) then they might have a case of hospital negligence.
In hospital negligence cases where a Gillick competent child is involved it would need to be established that the child was not made aware of the risks or side effects of their treatment by their healthcare provider. In the same way that a consenting adult would need to establish that they were not warned of similar risks.
Source...