Liability suit seeks change to informed consent

A case before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania could have major implications on how physicians obtain informed consent prior to a surgery. At stake inShinal v. Toms, is whether a patient ’s informed consent to surgery can be predicated on information provided in part by a physician’s assistant, as opposed to just the physician. Both the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act (MCARE) and common law have made it the physician’s duty to see that the proper informati on is conveyed, but the question is whether delegating tasks to qualified professionals is also within the bounds of the law and common medical practice.How the case unfolded In 2004, Megan Shinal underwent surgery to remove a tumor, but it regrew and by 2008 she was experiencing severe headaches and was referred to Steven A. Toms, MD, for a second surgery. This type of surgery —the removal of a craniopharyngioma, a very serious and recurrent rumor located deep in the base of the brain—is one of the most complex surgeries in all of neurosurgery. For this reason, there were numerous important surgical decisions to be made, some by the surgeon and some collaboratively wi th the patient. The major decisions were which of two surgical approaches to take —through the nose and the sphenoid bone, or through the skull—and whether to remove the entire tumor or leave a portion of the tumor in place. Removing the entire tumor usually produces a better long-term outcome, but involves more surgica...
Source: AMA Wire - Category: Journals (General) Authors: Source Type: news