The General Medical Council renewed its guidance on consent in 2020. In this essay, I argue that the 2020 guidance does not advance on the earlier, 2008 guidance in regard to treatments that doctors are obliged to offer to patients. In both, doctors are instructed to not provide treatments that are not in the overall benefit, or clinical interests, of the patient; although, patients are absolutely entitled to decline treatment. As such, consent has two aspects, and different standards apply to (...) each aspect. To explore this paradigm, I propose the reconceptualisation of consent as a person’s freedom to achieve treatment, using Amartya Sen’s approach. Sen explains that freedom has two aspects: process and opportunity. Accordingly, a patient’s freedom to achieve treatment would comprise a process for the identification of proper treatment, followed by an opportunity for the patient to accept or decline this treatment. As per Sen, the opportunity aspect is to be assessed by the standard of public reason, whereas the standard for the process aspect is variable and contingent on the task at hand. I then use this reconceptualised view of consent to analyse case law. I show that senior judges have conceived the patient’s opportunity to be encompassed in information, which is to be decided by public reason. On the other hand, the process aspect relies on the private reason of medical professionals. Given the nature of professionalism, this reliance is inescapable, and it is maintained in the case law that is cited in both guidances. (shrink)

The UK Supreme Court’s recent judgement inMcCulloch v Forth Valley Health Boardclarifies the standard for the identification of ‘reasonable’ alternative medical treatments. The required standard is that of a reasonable doctor: treatments that would be accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion. Accordingly, the assessment of consent involves a two-stage test: first, a ‘reasonable doctor’ test for identifying alternative treatments; followed by a ‘reasonable person in the patient’s position’ test for identifying the material risks of these reasonable (...) alternative treatments. The separation of consent into two stages is consistent with not only a certain conception of freedom but also a nuanced construct of respect for autonomy that has a normative base. Furthermore, reliance on a reasonable doctor in the first stage is in keeping with a sociological account of medical professionalism, which posits that only doctors, and none others, can determine what is a proper treatment. Yet, reliance on a reasonable doctor permits a plurality of standards for reasonableness, because differences in opinion among doctors are pervasive. The reasons for some differences might be acceptable as unavoidable imperfections in medical decision-making to a reasonable person. But reasons for other differences might be objectionable; and the resultant inequalities in medical treatments would be considered unfair. One solution is to make the plurality of reasonable alternatives available to the patient, but this would introduce practical uncertainty and it is rejected by the Court. The Court’s approach may be pragmatic; however, it seems to allow avoidable injustice in healthcare. (shrink)