’Patient consent’ is when a patient with capacity is voluntarily able to make an informed decision about their treatment when they are diagnosed with a disease or condition. This usually involves the signing of a form after an explanation of different options, but can be verbal in some cases.
‘Consent’ came into existence in our society, as healthcare systems shifted from a patriarchal one, where the doctors made the final medical decisions for their patients, to a patient-centred one, where patient autonomy is given the utmost importance. However, some may argue that the main benefit of this concept is that it doesn’t hold doctors responsible when treatments don’t benefit the patient, which I will be discussing further in this post.
I’d like to argue that there are many benefits that 'patient consent' brings with itself, besides the fact that it shifts the accountability to the patients. 'Patient consent' is when a patient with capacity is able to make an informed decision about their course of treatment when they are diagnosed with a disease or condition. One of the many merits of consent is, that it makes the patient feel more involved in their treatment plans. This gives them more hope, and confidence in their recovery, leading to better patient outcomes. Consent also provides room for a patient to abide by their personal, cultural and religious beliefs, which would also encourage people to seek treatment, as they would be sure that their beliefs wouldn't be neglected if they were to approach a medical professional about their problem. In a world where the freedom to expression and speech are given increasing importance, it would be unreasonable for these fundamental human rights to be ignored in a healthcare setting.
However, there are situations wherein a patient's ability to consent could have adverse effects. Although it is ethical and important for a patient to have autonomy, sometimes, the decisions they may make may be disadvantageous, and at times life-threatening to them. For example, if a patient who is a Jehovah's witness needs a life-saving surgery which involves blood transfusion, the patient would immediately refuse to consent, as it would require them to go against their beliefs- what they believe is right. In such cases the doctor should respect the patient's decision, but explain to the patient of the advantages and disadvantages of their decision, in case they would like to change their mind, while also assessing if their patient has capacity to make such decisions.
Granted that the existence of patient consent is beneficial to patients, it is equally of value to those who are medical professionals. Consent helps doctors and caregivers to understand the expectations, and the needs of their patients, allowing them to provide the best quality of care possible, thus strengthening the relationship between them. It also somewhat alleviates the fear of law suits, easing on the immense mental pressures that their jobs create, further permitting them to always act in their patient’s best interest.
Patient consent has many more merits than demerits, and has helped our healthcare systems to advance with our society, also allowing physicians to worry less about legal action. It would be unreasonable to argue that the concept of consent is only, or more beneficial to healthcare professionals than the patients, without evaluating the various arguments for both of the sides.
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/health/30chen.html
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/
https://www.gallaghermalpractice.com/blog/post/the-importance-of-patient-informed-consent
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/07/health/religion-medical-treatment/index.html
