|
So, are you going to go tell them how wrong they are, Kadath? Really think that'll accomplish much?
The reality of this is that doctors require consent from the patient or their legal guardian for every medical procedure, from drawing blood to open-heart surgery. When you go to your doctor for a checkup, your consent is implied for everything they do, but they DO have your legal consent. The minute treatment starts getting invasive, they have to start getting your consent on paper.
Partially, this is just good medical practice--it's been regularly ruled by the courts, in cases alleging negligence or malpractice, that patients should be informed of their status and allowed to make their own decisions about their care. In one famous case, a british surgeon was doing a routine operation on a woman when he noticed cancerous tissue in her uterus. He took it on his own initiative to perform a hysterectomy. In the ensuing court case, it was ruled that her informed consent rights outweighed any possible need for medical expediency.
The other thing is, malpractice insurance requires it. If there is legal documentation that the patient or their guardian is informed about the procedure and its risks, and knowingly consents, then their butts are covered for a broad range of the things that can go wrong during the procedure. Not everything, but things in the normal range of risk associated with the procedure.
Incidentally, saying "I don't think a parent should be able to refuse treatment on behalf of their child" is an emotionally compelling thing to say, but it goes in the face of centuries of guardianship law.
|