Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Obtaining Patient Consent

Client Alert

Patients have autonomy to choose what can and cannot be done to their bodies. Therefore, informed consent is required before any treatments or procedures commence. This is a stark contrast to the previously recognized paternalistic approach, which relies solely on the decision-making of the provider.

However, in order for patients to really choose whether or not to submit themselves to a particular healthcare service, they must actually understand what the service is. Therefore, patient consent should help the patient understand the risks and benefits, as well as any alternative treatment options.

Obtaining Consent

Merely having a patient sign an informed consent is not enough for a patient to consent. Rather, providers should have an active dialogue with patients, which starts with explaining a diagnosis, the proposed treatment including its benefits and risks, and any alternative treatment options and their benefits and risks. Providers should allow patients to ask any clarifying questions they may have. Only after this dialogue can a signed consent be obtained.

While some states recognize verbal consents as valid, others require that patients sign an authorization form to show that consent was actually obtained.

Capacity to Consent

Even if a provider engages in a dialogue with a patient clearly laying out the patient’s diagnosis, treatment options, and benefits and risks, some patients still cannot consent due to lack of capacity. If a patient cannot understand or appreciate the benefits, risks, and alternatives, or cannot demonstrate reasoning in their decision-making, the patient likely does not have capacity to give a valid informed consent. One way to determine whether a patient has capacity is to have the patient restate in their own words what they understood about the dialogue with their provider.

Further, while minor patients may seem to have capacity, they are incapable of providing informed consent (although there are some exceptions in states where the minor is emancipated or is being treated for specific illnesses, such as sexually transmitted diseases). Therefore, consent to treat minors will generally require a parent or guardian’s signature. 

Penalties

Failure to adequately obtain informed consent may result in consequences, including but not limited to medical malpractice lawsuits, loss of hospital privileges, or removal from preferred provider lists.

If you have any questions regarding patient consent in general, or whether your current process for obtaining informed consent is compliant with applicable state and/or federal law, please don’t hesitate to contact BMD Health Law Group Member Jeana M. Singleton at jmsingleton@bmdllc.com or 330-253-2001, or BMD Attorney Rachel Stermer at rcstermer@bmdllc.com or 330-253-2019.  


President Trump’s Effect on the Workplace

When President-elect Trump takes office, what can employers expect? What will be the effect of his presidency on the workplace and workforce? The probabilities and possibilities range from minor to major changes, with both short and long-term effects.

NLRB Ruling re: Private University Labor Update

Graduate students employed by private universities are permitted to unionize under federal law.

Urine Drug Testing Best Practices

The purpose of this suggested compliance plan is to provide guidance and best practices for prescribers of opiates and benzodiazepines. Compliance with OARRS is required. In addition, urine drug testing (UDT) among pain management physicians, OBGYNs, psychiatrists, and orthopedics is a useful tool that can not only assist in diagnostic and therapeutic decision making, but can also be used as a personal risk reduction tool for those physicians prescribing pain medications.

U.S. Supreme Court Reed Decision: Direct Impacts on Local Sign Regulation

Speaking at today’s Northeast Ohio Law Directors Association monthly meeting, Robert A. Hager, member of the firm Brennan, Manna & Diamond in Akron, will be participating on a panel of experts presenting and analyzing the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, wherein the Court struck down as unconstitutional under the First Amendment the Town’s sign ordinance based on it not being content neutral and, therefore, not surviving strict scrutiny under the Court’s test for non-content neutral regulations.