

It was established in the case of MB SCR 514 at 513 that an "adult is presumed to have the capacity to consent to or refuse medical treatment unless and until that presumption is rebutted". Outlined below are the legal principles established around the requirements and what they mean:- 1. That the patient was informed in making that decision.įor a doctor or other medical practitioner, the significant issue must be what constitutes valid consent.The consent covers the procedure in question.It is well established by case law and practice that valid consent must meet the following requirements: However, it must also meet the legal requirements to make it 'valid'. Before anything is done to that person's body by any medical professional, their consent must be obtained.Ĭonsent to treatment can be implied, verbal and written. The established presumption is that every adult of sound mind has a right to determine what will be done to their body. legislative exemptions permit treatment without consent in limited circumstances (eg treatment provided in an emergency).

a patient has a right to refuse treatment.consent to treatment is distinct from the duty to warn about potential risks of treatment (distinguished by the fact that a failure to warn can give rise to a separate cause of action see also Doctor's duty to warn about risks).any health care treatment provided without consent is a trespass.every adult of sound mind has a right to determine what will be done to their body.Some of the general principles established over time through case law and medical practice are: So what are the general principles of consent, and is it ever appropriate to act without that consent? This article is written from a Queensland perspective, but similar laws apply throughout other Australian states. Medical treatment has benefited millions of people, but there are obligations and responsibilities that all medical practitioners must abide by to ensure patients' rights are upheld. Sarah Atkinson and Christine Mercer, Maroochydore
