Hi, help us enhance your experience
Hi, help us enhance your experience
Hi, help us enhance your experience
1473 Views
Dr KK Aggarwal and Ms Ira Gupta 18 July 2018
In Samira Kohli vs Dr. Prabha Manchanda and Anr, SCI, Civil Appeal No. 1949 of 2004, 16.01.2008, the Supreme Court preferred ‘real consent’ followed in the UK over informed consent followed in America and summarized the principles relating to consent as follows:
But there is no need to explain remote or theoretical risks involved, which may frighten or confuse a patient and result in refusal of consent for the necessary treatment. Similarly, there is no need to explain the remote or theoretical risks of refusal to take treatment, which may persuade a patient to undergo a fanciful or unnecessary treatment. A balance should be achieved between the need for disclosing necessary and adequate information and at the same time avoid the possibility of the patient being deterred from agreeing to a necessary treatment or offering to undergo an unnecessary treatment.”
{{Article_Title}}
{{Article_Author}}
{{Article_Title}}
{{Article_Author}}