ABSTRACT
While we are all familiar with the need to ensure that patients are fully informed prior to consenting for treatment, the mirror-image duty of ensuring that their refusal is equally informed has been considered in court, after a mother claimed that her delivery of a baby with Down syndrome could and should have been avoided. The pregnant lady presented herself at booking appointment in the ninth week of pregnancy and accepted the offer of a number of tests which included combined ultrasound and serum screening for Down syndrome. The judge found that there was ‘no real distinction between on the one hand consenting to and on the other declining a procedure in these circumstances’, largely because the patient had either to accept or reject the offer of the scan on the basis that she was properly informed. Summing up, the judge did not accept that the sonographer's role was limited to hearing the patient's acceptance or declination of Down screening.
