LEGAL PRINCIPLE: TORT LAW — Battery — Medical Treatment — Consent — Amputation Without Consent Constitutes Battery
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Amputation of a patient's finger done intentionally and without the consent of the patient or his guardian constitutes battery.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Katsina-Alu, JSC, in Okekearu v. Tanko (2002) NLC-731998(SC) at pp. 6–7; Paras B–A.
"The amputation of the plaintiff's finger was done intentionally and without the consent of the plaintiff or his guardian. This means that the defendant is guilty of battery."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Medical treatment without consent is battery. Amputation is a significant procedure requiring specific consent. General consent to treatment does not cover amputation. The patient must be informed of the nature of the procedure. The principle protects bodily integrity. The doctor is liable for trespass to the person. The absence of consent is the key element. The patient may consent to treatment but not to amputation. The rule applies even if the treatment was medically beneficial. The doctor must obtain specific informed consent for invasive procedures. The court will award damages for unauthorised procedures.