ABSTRACT
This chapter explores ongoing difficulties in the definition of competency. The advent of the Civil Liability Acts in Australia has largely restored the Bolam standard in respect of diagnosis and treatment. The English High Court held that once a patient is informed in broad terms of the nature of a procedure, and gives her consent; that consent is real and no action will lie in battery. The view that the nature of the treatment is dependent upon whether the treatment is beneficial for the patient or not is not without controversy. The experimental aspect of a proposed treatment may also be relevant if a distinction as to the nature of treatments can be drawn between procedures which are inherently dangerous, and those which are not. The idea that some risks may be part of the nature of the treatment has been supported by some authority in other Commonwealth jurisdictions.
