The General Medical Council renewed its guidance on consent in 2020. In this essay, I argue that the 2020 guidance does not advance on the earlier, 2008 guidance in regard to treatments that doctors are obliged to offer to patients. In both, doctors are instructed to not provide treatments that are not in the overall benefit, or clinical interests, of the patient; although, patients are absolutely entitled to decline treatment. As such, consent has two aspects, and different standards apply to (...) each aspect. To explore this paradigm, I propose the reconceptualisation of consent as a person’s freedom to achieve treatment, using Amartya Sen’s approach. Sen explains that freedom has two aspects: process and opportunity. Accordingly, a patient’s freedom to achieve treatment would comprise a process for the identification of proper treatment, followed by an opportunity for the patient to accept or decline this treatment. As per Sen, the opportunity aspect is to be assessed by the standard of public reason, whereas the standard for the process aspect is variable and contingent on the task at hand. I then use this reconceptualised view of consent to analyse case law. I show that senior judges have conceived the patient’s opportunity to be encompassed in information, which is to be decided by public reason. On the other hand, the process aspect relies on the private reason of medical professionals. Given the nature of professionalism, this reliance is inescapable, and it is maintained in the case law that is cited in both guidances. (shrink)

The decision of the High Court in Bell v Tavistock has excited considerable discussion about lawful consent for puberty-blocking drug treatment for children with gender dysphoria. The present paper draws attention to a wider question that surfaces through this case: is informed decision-making an adequate practical tool for seeking and obtaining patients’ consent for medical treatment? Informed decision-making engages the premises of the rational choice theory: that people will have well-crystallised health goals; and, if they are provided with sufficient information (...) about medical treatments, then they will be able to choose the treatment that satisfies their goals. Whilst appealing, the informed decision-making paradigm is assailed by various fallacies, which apply not only to children but also to adults. In Bell v Tavistock, the High Court seems to have recognised such fallacies, and it rejected informed decision-making as an adequate tool for consent from children with gender dysphoria. Similar considerations apply to adults in various situations. Thus, Bell v Tavistock can be seen as an attempt to refine the views on the consent that were expressed by the Supreme Court in Montgomery. It can be inferred that the Supreme Court did recognise the limitations of informed decision-making, but it did not develop this point. Further work is required to formulate an adequate model of decision-making, and Bell v Tavistock serves as a useful reminder to rethink informed decision-making as the device for consent. (shrink)

Parsa-Parsi et al assert that the International Code of Medical Ethics (ICoME) provides a professional standard that overrides conflicting national legal norms.1 While this claim is made in the context of laws that require doctors to participate in ‘acts of torture, or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading practices and punishments’ (para10 of ICoME), the underlying premise that medical ethics supersedes law requires scrutiny. It is clear that medical ethics and law are linked inextricably, but there is unresolved debate about the (...) sequence of this interaction: should ethics shape law; or is it the converse? Important principles, notably respect for patients’ autonomy, have arisen from case law and subsequently been adopted into medical ethics. As pointed out by Beauchamp and Childress, it is only ‘since the mid-1970s (that) the primary justification advanced for requirements of informed consent has been to protect autonomous choice’ (pg.118).2 Whereas, the legal obligation to respect autonomy can be traced to the early 1900s, in the landmark US case of Schloendorff v Society of New York Hospital : ‘Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body’.1 Moreover, the term informed consent was born in law: it was coined …. (shrink)

The necessity of consent is widely justified on the basis of the principle of respect for autonomy. Also, it is widely believed that shared decision making (SDM) is the practical device to seek patients’ consent for medical treatment. In this essay, I argue that SDM, while necessary, is insufficient for consent; because, in the paradigm of evidence-based medicine, SDM is contingent upon other practices to identify appropriate treatments that form the subjects of SDM. Indeed, case law emphasises normative decision-making practices (...) that precede SDM. Furthermore, case law supplies a nuanced understanding of SDM, which includes not only exchange of information but also attention to human vulnerability that persists despite formal retention of decision-making capacity. In addition, the law marks out a space in which people with capacity are absolutely entitled to self-determination. Thus, a four-step framework of decision making can be induced from legal doctrine. This legal framework corresponds to a construct of respect for autonomy that draws upon feminist theory. Feminist scholars have objected to the focus on individuals in traditional theories of autonomy; instead, they insist that people have to be considered in the context of their social influences and relationships. Feminists separate out four ideas of autonomy, and these ideas can be used to construct a four-layered model of respect for autonomy, in which each layer corresponds sequentially to a step in the legal framework of decision making. This model of respect for autonomy provides both conceptual clarity and theoretically robust justification for doctors’ various obligations in decision-making practices for consent. (shrink)

The UK Supreme Court’s recent judgement inMcCulloch v Forth Valley Health Boardclarifies the standard for the identification of ‘reasonable’ alternative medical treatments. The required standard is that of a reasonable doctor: treatments that would be accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion. Accordingly, the assessment of consent involves a two-stage test: first, a ‘reasonable doctor’ test for identifying alternative treatments; followed by a ‘reasonable person in the patient’s position’ test for identifying the material risks of these reasonable (...) alternative treatments. The separation of consent into two stages is consistent with not only a certain conception of freedom but also a nuanced construct of respect for autonomy that has a normative base. Furthermore, reliance on a reasonable doctor in the first stage is in keeping with a sociological account of medical professionalism, which posits that only doctors, and none others, can determine what is a proper treatment. Yet, reliance on a reasonable doctor permits a plurality of standards for reasonableness, because differences in opinion among doctors are pervasive. The reasons for some differences might be acceptable as unavoidable imperfections in medical decision-making to a reasonable person. But reasons for other differences might be objectionable; and the resultant inequalities in medical treatments would be considered unfair. One solution is to make the plurality of reasonable alternatives available to the patient, but this would introduce practical uncertainty and it is rejected by the Court. The Court’s approach may be pragmatic; however, it seems to allow avoidable injustice in healthcare. (shrink)

The General Medical Council (GMC) instructs doctors to act ‘reasonably’ in obtaining consent from patients. However, the GMC does not explain what it means to be reasonable: it is left to doctors to figure out the substance of this instruction. The GMC relies on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board; and it can be assumed that the judges’ idea of reasonability is adopted. The aim of this paper is to flesh out this idea of reasonability. This (...) idea is commonly personified as the audience that has to be satisfied by the doctor’s justification for offering, or withholding, certain treatments and related information. In case law, this audience shifted from a reasonable doctor to a ‘reasonable person in the patient’s position’; and Montgomery expands the audience to include ‘particular’ patients, too. Senior judges have clarified that the reasonable person is a normative ideal, and not a sociological construct; but they do not set out the characteristics of this ideal. John Rawls has conceived the reasonable person-ideal as one that pursues fair terms of co-operation with other members of society. An alternative ideal can be inferred from the feminist ethic of care. However, the reasonable patient from Montgomery does not align with either theoretical ideal; but, instead, is an entirely rational being. Such a conception conflicts with both real-life constraints on rationality and the doctor’s duty to care for the patient, and it challenges the practice of medicine. (shrink)

Cox and Fritz state the central problem as the absence of a framework for healthcare policy decisions; but, they overlook the theoretical underpinnings of public law. In response, they propose a two-step procedure to guide fair decision-making. The first step relies on Thomas Scanlon’s ‘contractualism’ for stakeholders to consider whether, or not, they could reasonably reject policy proposals made by others; then in the second step, John Rawls’s principles of justice are applied to these proposals; a fair policy requires to (...) pass both steps. I argue that Cox and Fritz misinterpret Rawls. His theory has two stages: first, public reason is used to generate principles of justice; second, public reason is used to interpret and apply these principles. The second stage requires that proposals are based on the principles of justice from the first stage, and these proposals have to be acceptable to reasonable persons. Thus, Rawls’s theory does not need Scanlonian supplementation. Moreover, the application of Rawls’s theory in Cox and Fritz’s model is confusing. In any case, the problems with applying Rawlsian justice to healthcare can be located elsewhere. First, Rawls’s theory would treat healthcare simply as a ‘primary good’ or resource. Social justice ought to, instead, consider healthcare as an opportunity, in the manner conceived by Amartya Sen. Second, Rawlsian justice rests, ultimately, on the conception of a reasonable person; until and unless the characteristics of reasonable stakeholders are clarified, any model of health justice will remain hostage to the unreasonable. (shrink)

Makin argues that doctors1 should defer to each patient’s attitude to risk, over and above standard, utility-based and outcome-focussed medical decision-making models, in selecting treatment options for that patient.1 Although Makin articulates the problem as a dilemma of whether ‘to give the treatment or to withhold it’, it can be assumed that his question is whether the doctor should offer a certain treatment; because both the General Medical Council and law require doctors to engage patients in shared decision-making (SDM) and (...) to obtain consent before ‘giving’ any treatment. Yet, Makin is correct in asserting that doctors ‘make choices on behalf of their patients on a daily basis’ insofar that doctors do have to make certain a priori decisions. SDM requires a starting point—a range of clinically appropriate or reasonable options—on which patients and doctors can collaboratively deliberate in order to reach a treatment decision; and the doctor has to set out this starting point.2 Thus, Makin’s reductive claim is that doctors should take each patient’s risk attitude into account in setting out the starting points for SDM. In this commentary, I will explore UK case law in response to Makin’s proposal; because, ultimately, doctors have to work within the legal framework. Makin relies on the bioethical principles of respect …. (shrink)