I do not think this ruling changed, as opposed to spelt out, the law in England
I am not of the opinion that this ruling has altered the law in England, at all: it has just made clear(er) to medics, the 'internal logic' of sections 3 and 25(4) of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA).
Despite many medics seeming to believe the MCA did something different, the only way I could ever interpret sections 3 and 25(4) is that the Act supports the idea that clinicians must inform their patients of the clinical outcomes and risks associated with any offered treatment, and then the patient incorporates into his decision-making any relevant non-clinical factors, and expresses consent or refusal. That isn't 'shared decision-making', it is a separation of roles. And if post-decision, with hindsight a risk might be considered relevant, it should have been explained before consent/refusal.
Put simply, the MCA wrote into English law, 'Informed Consent' (and Considered Refusal) and that necessarily required clinicians to inform patients of prognoses, etc: the concept of 'valid non-informed consent' is logically absurd, and the MCA is not logically absurd !
Rapid Response:
I do not think this ruling changed, as opposed to spelt out, the law in England
I am not of the opinion that this ruling has altered the law in England, at all: it has just made clear(er) to medics, the 'internal logic' of sections 3 and 25(4) of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA).
Despite many medics seeming to believe the MCA did something different, the only way I could ever interpret sections 3 and 25(4) is that the Act supports the idea that clinicians must inform their patients of the clinical outcomes and risks associated with any offered treatment, and then the patient incorporates into his decision-making any relevant non-clinical factors, and expresses consent or refusal. That isn't 'shared decision-making', it is a separation of roles. And if post-decision, with hindsight a risk might be considered relevant, it should have been explained before consent/refusal.
Put simply, the MCA wrote into English law, 'Informed Consent' (and Considered Refusal) and that necessarily required clinicians to inform patients of prognoses, etc: the concept of 'valid non-informed consent' is logically absurd, and the MCA is not logically absurd !
Competing interests: No competing interests