INFORMED CONSENT – IN HAIR TRANSPLANTATION
In accordance to the Supreme Court of Italy (CASSAZIONE): “INFORMED CONSENT IS NEVER PRESUMED. THE LACK OF GRANTING BY THE PATIENT IS A SOURCE OF LIABILITY ON THE PART OF THE DOCTOR”
The lack of granting informed consent to treatment on the part of the patient, not adequately informed, constitutes an independent source of responsibility, leaving the measure irrelevant or the technical accuracy of the treatments offered.
The recent Supreme Court judgment Italian (Cassazione) ratifies a fundamental principle in the field of medical liability.
For this reason we invite you not to underestimate the importance of informed consent. Do not sign anything if you are not sure. Of the many patients that contacted me to sue a surgeon, 9 out of every 10 of them did not have a copy of the signed informed consent, and often they didn’t even remember having signed it.
For this reason, if the surgeon who will perform surgery on you is not diligent in giving just importance to your granting of informed consent step, you have to be, reading very well what you are signing, asking all the necessary questions and clarifications and obtain a copy of the informed consent, pre- and post-operative photos, in addition to a copy of your clinical history. It’s your right!
Is it true that many are victims of “pseudo-surgeons,” but do we want in our own interest to wake up?
Supreme Court of Italy – Third civilian section – Judgment n.20984/2012
Consent is necessary even if the patient is a doctor.
A radiologist doctor legally sued the hospital where he worked to obtain compensation for damage caused by a cortisone therapy that he had been given, because he considered that he had not been informed about the risks of this drug and because the conditions for him granting the necessary informed consent did not occur.
The Court accepted the demand, but the Court of Appeals, to which the ASL had gone (local health center in Italy), appealed the judgment, excluding the hospital from responsibility, based on the assumption of the relevance of the position occupied by the patient, a doctor, by considering that the test of his conscious consent to treatment was reached.
“The Corte di Cassazione has accolto rinviato e il ricorso alla Corte d’Appello in diverse Composizione Humoristica in.”
The Supreme Court judges pointed out the key points with regard to the issue of informed consent, clarifying in particular how the end purpose of the information that the physician must give is that of ensuring the right to self-determination of the sick, who is free to accept or reject the health treatment.
It is then evident that the status of patient is irrelevant in order to exclude the sense of duty, while that may have an impact on the modalities of information, with the adoption of a language that take into account the patient’s particular and subjective condition that, in the case of patient-doctor, may be adjusted to his scientific knowledge on the subject.
The supreme court of Italy accepted the appeal and remitted the case to the Court of Appeals.