Question

Identify and briefly argue a legal reason why imforme consent was satisfied.

Informed Consent Discussion Forum On June 13, 2003, Thomas Jandre presented to the ER after experiencing 20 minutes of slurred speech, facial weakness on his left side and dizziness. He was treated by Dr. Therese Bullis, who established differential diagnoses including among other things Bell's palsy, stroke and Multiple Sclerosis. After ordering a CT scan, which returned negative for hemorrhagic stroke, Dr. Bullis diagnosed Jandre with a-typical Bell's palsy, prescribed medication for him and instructed him to follow up with his primary care physician within a week. Three days later, Jandre saw his primary care physician and was diagnosed with resolving Bell's palsy. Eight days after that visit, Jandre suffered a massive stroke. Dr. Bullis had not informed him that additional tests were available for detecting a stroke.

Answer 1

Informed consent is the process that assumes that you are legally able to make your own decisions. If you are not, the person who is legally allowed to make decisions for you goes through the same process on your behalf. For informed consent to take place, the information that’s given must be understood.

Now let us analyse the above situation. Both a stroke and Bell’s Palsy can cause patients to have partial facial paralysis, which is why one is occasionally mistaken for the other. Either can render an entire side of your face immobile. But aside from this symptom, the cause can be entirely different. And even though CT scans are excellent at detecting the bleeding in the brain that occurs in hemorrhagic stroke, ischemic stroke may be difficult or impossible to see in CT images, especially during the first few hours after the stroke occurs, which is the period when treatment decisions are most important. But in the above situation after ruling out hemorrhagic stroke, Dr Bullis ruled stroke out and diagnosed as Bell's Palsy. Even Thomas Jandre or his relatives were not properly explained about the situation and they were not even aware that there are other tests available to detect stroke. Mr Jandre presented again three days later with the same symptoms. If communication would have been proper and Mr Thomas or his relatives would have been properly informed about the condition and the consent would have been taken regarding the treatment choice, Dr Bullies would have been safe from legal perspective. Now the situation is such that if the family of Mr Thomas Jandre wants they can sue Dr Bullies for not taking a informed consent.