ABSTRACT
Mr Ollosson suffered chronic disabling testicular pain after a vasectomy in 2012. He claimed that he was not given adequate information about the risk of this complication. Properly informed, he would have avoided undergoing the surgery. During a subsequent trial in the High Court, general practitioners accustomed to performing vasectomy acted as expert witnesses. Both gave evidence as to what they would normally disclose prior to seeking consent for vasectomy. In relation to practice in 2012, the experts agreed that as a substitute for setting out population risk as percentages, the use of words such as ‘a small possibility of post-vasectomy pain which can be chronic’ was commonplace, and an appropriate way of describing long-term pain. Focussing on the adequacy of describing a risk as ‘small’, the court found this to be a satisfactory method of communicating risk.
