LEGAL PRINCIPLE: TORT LAW — Battery — Medical Treatment — Consent — General Consent to Treatment Insufficient for Amputation
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The word "treatment" is omnibus and vague; it cannot accommodate the specific significant act of amputation of a part of the body.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Tobi, JSC, in Okekearu v. Tanko (2002) NLC-731998(SC) at p. 9; Paras D–E.
"The word 'treatment' which, in the context, means substance or method of treating illness by medical means, is omnibus and vague. In my humble view, it can hardly accommodate the specific significant act of amputation of a part of the body."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
General consent to “treatment” does not cover amputation. Amputation is a specific, significant procedure requiring specific consent. The principle protects patients from unauthorised invasive procedures. The doctor must explain the intended procedure. The patient must understand what they are consenting to. The rule applies to all significant surgical procedures. Vague or general consent is insufficient. The doctor cannot rely on a broad consent form. The court will examine whether the patient was specifically informed of the amputation. The principle ensures that patients retain control over their bodies. The doctor must obtain explicit consent for amputation.