LEGAL PRINCIPLE: TORT LAW — Battery — Medical Treatment — Consent — Requirement of Informed Consent for Surgical Procedures
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
A patient must be given sufficient information about the proposed treatment to enable him to give an informed consent; the duty is to warn of all effects inherent in the treatment, not just effects that might result from negligence.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Katsina-Alu, JSC, in Okekearu v. Tanko (2002) NLC-731998(SC) at pp. 5–6; Paras D–B.
"In all other cases the patient must be given sufficient information about the proposed treatment to enable him to give an informed consent to the procedure. ... In another case where a doctor was sued for battery it was held that if he had failed to explain the general nature of the treatment, the patient's consent would be invalid; but that there is no obligation to explain the effects that might result from negligence. The duty is to warn of all effects inherent in the treatment."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Informed consent requires disclosure of the nature and inherent risks of treatment. The doctor must explain the procedure and its inherent effects. The duty does not extend to warning about effects that might result from negligence (which are not inherent). The principle protects patient autonomy. The patient must understand what they are consenting to. Failure to obtain informed consent may constitute battery or negligence. The rule applies to surgical and invasive procedures. The doctor cannot rely on general consent for significant procedures. The court will examine whether sufficient information was given. The patient’s decision must be voluntary and informed.