Whenever you are given medical treatment, it is generally a requirement that you give the physicians consent to perform the procedures necessary for your health. This is called informed consent. By definition, informed consent is the doctor's responsibility to give the patient all information about a particular treatment or procedure so that the patient can make an informed decision about whether or not to undergo that treatment, procedure, or test.

Normally, doctors will complete informed consent by giving the patient a form which list all the risks of t a procedure and requires a signature before the procedures can be performed. The doctor is also required to verbally discuss these risks with a patient and make sure to clear up any misunderstandings and answer any questions. The patient must understand the risks that he or she faces, and they must not be kept hidden when the doctor pitches the procedure/ Whether or not a patient gives informed consent to the risks of any given treatment or procedure is a very important factor in medical malpractice cases.

If a procedure went horribly wrong, but the patient was fully aware of the risk and still acquiesced to the procedure, then changes are that the doctor won't be held responsible for the injuries that occurred. If the error that occurred was out of negligence, and was avoided, then the patient may still have a case. A doctor is not required to tell a patient about every possible thing that might happen as a result of a procedure. This is because the possibilities for an error or an accident may be somewhat endless and entirely too overwhelming. Instead, doctors are required to only disclose the most important risks associated with the surgery.

Typically, courts determine whether a risk is important and should be mentioned by asking if other doctors would have disclosed the risk when describing the procedure. If the other doctors would have done this, then the error can be considered important. Also, the courts will ask if a normal patient would have made a different decision about the surgery or procedure at hand of informed of the risk. If the answer is yes, then the risk is considered important enough that it should have been mentioned, and the doctor may be sued for failing to disclose the important risks in compliance with informed consent statutes.

There are some situations where informed consent is not required. If you were rushed to the hospital in an emergency, then there is not time to describe all of the risks associated with your case. As a result, you may be treated without ever having informed consent. Also, doctors have the right to waive informed consent if they are dealing with a patient who is emotionally fragile. For example, if a doctor knows that a patient is so worried about the surgery that he or she will not consent to a very important surgery if told of the severe risks, then the doctor may choose to be vague. Doctors are at their own discretion to determine when a person is too emotionally unstable to hear the risks.

If a doctor performs a different procedure then the one agreed on in the informed consent discusses, then the patient as the right to sue because informed consent was violated. However, if a doctor is in the midst of surgery when he discovers a serious medical issue that he was unaware of, then the individual can most likely perform procedures to correct the medical issue without informed consent. If you think you have a medical malpractice case based on informed consent, then contact a lawyer at the firm as well. With the right attorney there to help you with your case, you will be able to get the information that you need and possibly pursue a legal claim to compensation.