This Saturday, April 22, 2023, at a signing in Paris, Désiré Amoikon will present his book on consent in the medical contract. Through a comparative study, this author leads us to question an aspect which was once less taken into account in hospitals and which is still on the agenda in our tropics. This is obviously medical consent. So what is it really?
If 49.3 engages the responsibility of a government, agreeing to carry out care which may possibly endanger the life of others, also engages the responsibility of the doctor in the exercise of his functions. Indeed, a doctor cannot claim to perform an amputation operation or cut a kidney or even suggest any therapeutic treatment without asking the patient’s consent. This doctor engages in a counter-practice of medical doxa. Because, according to Section 36 of Patient Consent, any doctor in the exercise of his functions must imperatively seek the consent of the patient before any possible therapeutic treatment. A fact that Désiré Amoikon emphasizes in his book from page 35 to page 40. You will have understood it. Medical consent is the green light before any medical contract is drawn up.
What is medical consent?
As a patient, you have the right to ask questions of a treating physician when the latter suggests therapeutic treatments. So, let it be said, asking for explanations about a treatment recommended by your doctor is not to question his medical training.. This is called a medical explanation in order to achieve informed consent. Normally, you don’t have to ask for explanations. Since the doctor must first tell you the reason for this therapeutic treatment. When this one does not do it, you have the right and the duty to ask him “the why” of this therapeutic suggestion. When he provides you with all the necessary explanations about this treatment and you subsequently give him your consent, we say in this case that medical consent has taken place. This may eventually give rise to a medical contract in the context of an operation or any other surgical intervention.
What do the texts say about free and informed consent?
Several linguistic texts are solicited by our author Désiré Amoikon, to define free and informed consent. The latter particularly draws our attention, especially on page 41, to a text of the June 1964 Declaration of the World Medical Association. You can also read this:During treatment, the doctor must be free to resort to a new therapeutic method if he judges that it offers a serious hope of saving life, restoring health or alleviating the suffering of the patient. He must, as far as possible and taking into account the psychology of the patient, obtain his free and informed consent and, in the event of physical incapacity, the consent of the legal representative will replace that of the patient.”. Added to this thesis is the one mentioned above in the preamble, that is to say, article 36 of the patient’s consent. We also do not omit the Kouchner law and the Teyssier decree of January 28, 1924 mentioned by Désiré Amoikon. All other things being equal, medical consent is the only key, the only free and fair way to draw up a medical contract.
Why establish medical consent?
Medical consent makes it possible to draw up a pact, or even a medical contract. In this contract, the subject or the patient confirms that he agrees with the therapeutic treatment recommended by the doctor. Initiating thus, a kind of deal or collaboration between them. So, the responsibility of the two collaborators is engaged. This implies that in the event of a possible incident, the patient is well aware of the risks and consequences that could occur.. In some cases, it clears the doctor of any charge. But in other cases, particularly in the context of an acknowledgment of fault or medical error, the doctor can be sued if the patient wishes to file a complaint. Ultimately, Establishing an informed medical consent makes it possible to enforce a patient’s consent following any therapeutic proposal. Whether you are the best doctor in the world, before asserting your skills on a person, you must have recourse to the latter’s free and informed consent. Otherwise, you risk jeopardizing your job, your medical degree and your knowledge.
In which situations should the doctor ask for free and informed consent?
The situation is necessarily medical and therapeutic. And, not in any other setting. For example, a pregnant patient presents with an advanced fibroid. The delivery is premature, painful and risks the life of the patient. In an emergency, the doctor takes the initiative to perform a tubectomy or a tubal ligation without the woman’s consent. Shortly after, he informs the lady of the operation which has been carried out and the latter, not having given her consent, decides to file a complaint against the doctor. Here is a situation where consent is necessary. Clearly, note that the slightest clinical or therapeutic situation must necessarily be the subject of consent before any medical contract.
You may also be interested :
⋙ Camel milk, dietary and medical virtues
⋙ Why medical research would benefit from including more women in its protocols
⋙ Are medical errors frequent?
⋙ Immunotherapy, a medical revolution
⋙ Chronic pain, the first indication for the prescription of medical cannabis
