Medical Malpractice Law

If consent is not properly introduced or informed then it is not valid to use. In order to consent to a set procedure, the patient must be aware of the situation. This authorizes doctors access to their body and do what they must. Without permission the doctors have no right to treat a subject, if they do so it is illegal and a sign of medical malpractice and negligence. Consent can only be liable if and when the patient is fully informed of all conditions and has provided proof of consent. Sometimes patients consent to a set plan but later revoke their involvement due to further analysis. They have this right and can pull out of any contracts at anytime they feel comfortable or have cold feet about the situation. If a patient is unauthorizedly
Any other person besides their own has no say in what results with their body. If something goes wrong that they agreed to then it wasn’t something that could have been avoided. This is the ultimate point of consent. You are given a choice on whether you want something or not. If a patient did not agree to something that was done to them, then the mistakes could have been avoided. This is even more severe when the patient is injured during unplanned operations.
The Malpractice Law Firm Jack H. Oldender & Associates explains the result of malpractice with the following: “ Medical malpractice occurs when a health care provider negligently inflicts an avoidable injury upon a patient. Under those circumstances, the patient has a right to file suit against the provider for money damages.” (Oldender)
Legal cases can be conducted when you are mistreated or used in ways you did not comply with. Imagine agreeing to a simple surgery and waking up to your life completely changed from decisions made by another being while you were unable to oppose. The medic has a task to fulfill, it is like any other job. A baker would not be professionally hired to build a house, and a pharmacist would not be hired to illegally sell drugs. Therefore, doctors should not illegally operate on a patient. Consent falls in with the regulations for their
Jamie Martin took her doctors to court after an uninformed surgery took place: “Charles Lowney, D.O., an osteopath practicing general medicine, and William Tompkins, M.D., a general surgeon, for failure to provide her with information adequate for her to give informed consent to a surgical procedure.” (Tompkins) Martin was aware of the surgery, however she was improperly informed. Tompkins and Lowney explained the surgery to remove her IUD would require a one inch incision. This was incorrect. The incision preceding the surgery left a six inch scar. While sedated, Tompkins who was assisted by Lowney, performed an appendectomy on Martin. If she would have been informed prior to this she would not have consented. A jury later viewed both sides and both