A fundamental problem of consent

doi:10.1136/bmj.310.6984.935

From trainee to consultant, BMJ Group offers doctors around the world tailored information, special events, learning resources and recruitment services at every step along their career path.

... by doctors, for doctors, for patients
We are open for entries!

Online learning

BMJ Learning

High-quality CME / CPD for doctors and other healthcare professionals. BMJ Learning features hundreds of accredited, peer-reviewed learning modules in text, video, and audio formats. Find out more

Courses and Qualifications

BMJ Masterclasses

BMJ Masterclasses, led by experts, help clinicians to use the latest evidence and recent guidelines in practice and meet their CPD/CME requirements. Find out more

Exam Preparation

The leading provider of online exam preparation, helping over 167,000 healthcare professionals to pass their exams. Find out more

onExamination

Search all BMJ comment articles:

From

Limit by

Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment. Please log in or subscribe below.

Nothing is inherently remiss in present methods of obtaining consent

S Morrell Lyons,
David S Saunders

President Honorary secretary Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland, London WC1B 3RA

EDITOR,—John Mitchell describes the case of a consultant anaesthetist who was found guilty of serious professional misconduct by the General Medical Council.1 After giving a general anaes-thetic for dental surgery the anaesthetist inserted a diclofenac suppository for pain relief (which was inadvertently inserted into the patient's vagina) without the patient's consent. The case and the commentaries by Michael A Jones and John N Lunn raise several points.

The verdict of the General Medical Council's professional conduct committee has, it appears, in one particular respect created a formal distinction between the hospital …