- John Mitchell, partnera
- a Clyde and Co, Solicitors, 51 Eastcheap, London EC3M 1JP
- Accepted 7 September 1994
A consultant anaesthetist gave a diclofenac suppository for postoperative pain to a patient having four teeth extracted under general anaesthesia in the dental surgery. He did not seek the patient's specific consent preoperatively for use of the suppository but told her afterwards what he had done. Charged before the professional conduct committee of the General Medical Council with failure to obtain informed consent and assault, the anaesthetist was found guilty of serious professional misconduct and admonished. This decision has far reaching implications and has caused great concern.
Consent and a patient's right to self determination are at the root of many important problems in medical ethics. In recent years consent, or the lack of it, has also become an increasingly common issue in medical negligence litigation. By contrast, the failure by a doctor to obtain consent to bona fide treatment has rarely if ever been the sole foundation for a finding of serious professional misconduct. I report a case recently brought before the professional conduct committee of the General Medical Council in which such a decision was reached.
Basis of charge
The facts of the case were simple. A 22 year old woman attended her local dental surgery for extraction of two wisdom teeth (lower eights) and two other teeth (lower fours). She knew that she was to have a general anaesthetic and gave her consent both verbally and by implication. She signed a form which stated: “I would like the dentist named overleaf to examine me under the NHS and to give me every necessary care and treatment which I am willing to undergo within NHS arrangements.” Not unusually, there was no consent form specifically for the anaesthetic. Though the Poswillo report recommended that a national general anaesthetic consent form should be devised for general dental practitioners,1 none has been produced. …
Sign in
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: Emergency admissions for diabetes fall by almost 7% in integrated care pilot scheme
Published 24 May 2012
Re: Television shows and education about sexually transmitted infections: no laughing matter
Published 24 May 2012
Re: The scatter of research: cross sectional comparison of randomised trials and systematic reviews across specialties
Published 24 May 2012
Re: Outcomes of elective induction of labour compared with expectant management: population based study
Published 24 May 2012
Reply to Anne Szarewski and Diana Mansour
Published 24 May 2012
Most responses
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (8 responses)
Published 2 May 2012
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (8 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27