ABSTRACT
Governments encourage patients to believe they have choice, which may extend to the identity of their surgeon. Irrespective of whether this choice is illusory, patients often negotiate this system successfully. The benefits of enabling a patient to choose her surgeon, who is, in turn, pleased that the patient should single them out as a preferred choice, seem self-evident. Expert surgeons providing evidence for both sides agreed that her decision was taken ‘so far down the line’ that it was unlikely to have been taken freely. The court agreed and accordingly found that the Trust was in breach of its standard of care for obtaining consent. The case of Mrs Jones does not explore what she would have done after her hypothetical refusal of consent if she had then been faced with yet another surgeon whom she had not chosen.
