ABSTRACT

Healthcare professionals, legal professionals, patients, scholars and members of Research Ethics Committees all hear the term 'informed consent' and sagely nod their heads. This chapter reveals an exploration of the common understanding of the term 'informed consent' and a challenge to its foundational principles. The two concepts which drive the doctrine of informed consent are evident in the label: the provision of information and the subsequent consent to treatment by the patient. The term informed consent was described as 'apt to mislead' as it suggests a test of the validity of the patient's consent. The doctrine therefore does exist and has been interpreted as a part of our law, but it is flawed and it is the flawed nature of informed consent. The judicial process set explained in Sally's situation is fairly straightforward, clearly enunciated and consistent with the law of negligence.