Causation and Informed Consent - Delaware
In my last article, I explained that the concept of informed consent is more than just signing a piece of paper. It's a communication process. The right to informed consent is based on the policy that every individual has the right to determine what’s done to his own body. Therefore, if a doctor fails to give the patient the appropriate information that’s needed to make an informed decision about whether to have a medical procedure, that’s a violation of the doctor’s duty to obtain informed consent.
Let’s assume the following facts. A patient isn’t properly informed of the risks of a procedure, which means there was a breach of the doctor’s duty. The doctor performed the procedure properly, but the injury occurred anyway due to the normal risks associated with the procedure. Without more, however, these facts are not enough to win a medical malpractice case. There’s one more thing the patient has to prove - that the patient would not have undergone the procedure if he had been properly informed of the risks. The reason for this additional proof is that if a patient would have gone forward with the procedure after being properly informed of the risks, then the fact that the doctor fails to obtain informed consent had nothing to do with the injury. Put another way, the patient has to prove that he would have decided differently if he had been properly informed, and without this proof, there’s no casual connection between the failure to disclose and the injury.
If you believe that you or a loved one has been injured due to medical malpractice, call a Delaware medical malpractice lawyer to discuss your rights.
