As a previous dental practitioner the subject of informed consent increased in importance over the past decade in particular. No longer was the patient given a treatment deemed in their best interest as directed by the practitioner without a full and detailed conversation. That conversation to include preferably a written explanation of the proposed treatment as well as the alternatives and the relative merits of each. A discussion of all options was to be fully documented with time to consider the options before any treatment was then finalised with documents signed confirming such a discussion had take place.
Factors such as cost, personal preference and potential risks of undergoing or declining the treatment were noted. Time between the proposed treatment conversation and the administration of said treatment was deemed vital.
Whatever the patient selected the risk of performing any kind of invasive treatment lay with the practitioner – perhaps undisclosed underlying medical conditions or events such as the patient moving suddenly causing surgery to go slightly awry. The quality of the materials and equipment used carried their – perhaps that risk lying with the practitioner or otherwise with the manufacturer.
This concept on informed consent is embedded in law around the world. Is implied consent enough? (it certainly wasn’t in the world of dentistry) – to not know all the risks both short and long term or to have a full discussion of alternatives such as improving ones personal care before diving into treatment (preventive or curative). Is it ok that no liability lies with the manufacturer of any product given under whatever circumstances to a person?
Lack of informed consent just doesn’t sit right and more.
My 2020 Story 