A doctor has no legal right to treat a patient without that patients consent
To do so would be: (1) a criminal offence (2) a civil wrong (3) a disciplinary matter
In order to give consent a patient must be capable.
Capability is determined by the ability to (a) understand information relevant to a decision (b) retain that information (c) weigh information as part of a decision making process and (d) communicate that decision. A person suffering from a mental disorder will not necessarily lack capacity
Rules for children
A child is someone who is under the age of 18
Children over 16 are presumed capable of giving valid consent as if they were an adult - but refusal is not binding (if the treatment is in the childs best interest, refusal can be overridden by someone with parental responsibility or the court)
Children under the age of 16 are capable of giving consent because they are sufficiently mature to understand the nature of the decsision "Fraser competent" - and refusal may still be overridden
Informed consent
Patient must be given sufficient information about the procedure
"sufficient" - enough to enable the patient to understand the nature, likely effects and risks of treatment including the prospects for success and any alternatives
The patient does not need to be informed of all possible risks
The Bolam Principle
"... he is not guilty of negligence if he has actied in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art... a man is not negligent, if he is acting in accordance with such practice, merely because there is a body of opinion who would take a contrary review"
