By Aliyah Chajchic ’25
In 1951 at John Hopkins hospital, patient Henrietta Lacks was diagnosed with cervical cancer, which at the time was one of the only hospitals that would treat poor people of color. Henrietta was a mother of 5 children who had unfortunately died on October 4th, 1951 at the age of 31. The story has much more significance than her being diagnosed with cervical cancer; during her radium treatments, the doctors discovered something with her cells that they have never seen before. With this discovery, they took a sample of her cells without her knowing and sent it to a doctor named George Gey. Dr. George Gey had been collecting cells from various patients with cervical cancer in hopes of finding cells that would continuously replace itself. When he was given the sample of Henrietta’s cell, he discovered that her cells were completely immortal and did not just die like all of the other cells he had seen. Once this discovery was made he immediately began to use her cells for research and gave them to other scientists.
Henrietta’s cells had been taken and given to a doctor to be used for research all without her permission or her knowledge of even knowing that her cells were being used. The doctors had not received informed consent to go through with this research, nor did they reach out to Henrietta’s family to inform them on what was going on with her cells. Informed consent is a mandatory step before any procedure or treatment. It is important that the patient is fully aware of what is being done to their body and knows the details on the procedure or treatment. If a doctor does not receive informed consent, then they will face major consequences for skipping that step in the medical process. The only exception to informed consent is if the patient themselves is unable to speak for themselves; without that, informed consent should always be given to doctors.
Informed consent has more to it than just asking the patient for permission to do or give a certain treatment or procedure: “It is the process in which a healthcare provider educates a patient about the risk, benefits, and alternatives of a given procedure or intervention”(“Informed Consent”). Before a doctor can go through with any procedure the patient has every right to be informed and ask questions before any of the procedures or treatment they will be receiving (“What Is Informed Consent?”). A medical procedure can not begin without informed consent for the safety of the patient and it is there to protect them. To ensure that informed consent is always given, the Joint committee which is a committee appointed by both the house of representatives and senate in order to reach an agreement on their opinions concerning a particular issue; they seek to improve healthcare for the people. They require a document that includes all elements of informed consent which include the nature of the procedure, the risk, and benefits, alternatives, risk and benefits of the alternatives, and an assessment of the patient’s understanding of the previous elements (“Informed Consent”). This document is there to show that there was some sort of communication between the patient and their healthcare provider as well as making sure that the healthcare provider had given the patient all of the information needed to know before the patient was left to make a decision (“What Is Informed Consent?”).
The standard requirement of informed consent is different in each state, and there are only three appropriate and acceptable ways to approach reasonable informed consent (“Informed Consent”). The first approach is known as the subjective standard: “What would this patient need to know and understand to make an informed decision?” The second approach is a reasonable patient standard: “What would the average patient need to know to be an informed participant in the decision?” and lastly the third approach: “What would a typical physician say about this procedure?”(“Informed Consent”). The process of informed consent is there to allow a patient and their healthcare provider to make a proper decision together.
Now, being aware that informed consent is mandatory and must be included before any procedure, if any doctor does not provide their patient with the correct process of informed consent, the doctor will end up facing major consequences (“Informed Consent And Unauthorized Treatment”). A patient who does not receive the proper informed consent during a non-emergency situation, the doctor will end up being charged with a civil defense or criminal offense, and the charges may include battery or gross negligence. If the doctor is being charged with a civil offense then the patient must include the exact elements that the doctor failed to provide for informed consent. The patient has to show that the doctor went through with the procedure or treatment without informed consent, and the patient also must show that if they had known all of the details of the treatment or procedure, they would not have gone through with it. A medical procedure will even be counted as unauthorized if the doctor did not fully explain the procedure or treatment. If a doctor does not allow a patient to give them informed consent and the patient were to be injured during the procedure, they may be able to sue the doctor for malpractice, even if the injury was common and a standard risk in the situation (“Lack Of Informed Consent- Can You Sue For Medical Malpractice”).
Though it sounds like every single medical procedure or treatment absolutely needs informed consent, there are some exceptions to it. The main exceptions to informed consent consist of , when the patient is incapacitated, when it is an emergency, and when the patient is a child (“Why Informed Consent Matters”). When the patient is incapacitated, the medical information interferes with the patient being able to understand and to even make a proper decision, this can be a condition that this patient has had for some time or it may be temporary and the patient is being affected by it the same time they need medical care. If something like this happens with a patient, the healthcare provider must go to an appropriate replacement so that these medical decisions can be made for the patient. During an emergency when urgent care is needed, the process of informed consent may end up putting the patient’s life at risk, meaning that the provider may not be able to go through every single treatment, and will have to choose the treatment that they believe is best for the patient. Once this is over, the provider will try to get their informed consent when the patient is able to give it. From there on, the doctor will keep the patient informed on any future procedures or treatments. When the patient is a child, their parent or guardian is the person who is responsible for making medical decisions for the child, though some states allow minors of a certain age to make their own decisions and give informed consent themselves. If a minor would like to remove their parent or guardian from making medical decisions for them, it is called “medical emancipation,” and with this the minor will get assigned someone new to make those medical decisions for them.
When it comes to doing what is best for the patient, doctors will always try to go with the route of withholding information from the patient that doctors feel that they should not know. There are sometimes situations when the actual truth can be too brutal for a patient to hear, and this news can have a terrible impact on the patient (“Truth-Telling and Withholding Information”). If the healthcare provider truly believes that disclosure will affect the patient in a harmful way, it is justified for the doctor to withhold that information; this includes any disclosure that would make the patient depressed and soon to be actively suicidal. For example, telling a patient that they have been diagnosed with stage 4 cancer, and there is nothing left to do to save that patient. Though this all may be true, being completely honest with the patient will give them trust and it shows them that they are respected. Informing your patient about all news and information allows them to become informed participants in these important medical decisions, concluding that patients should be aware of all aspects of their illness. The only situation where it is okay to withhold any type of information is if the patient told the provider themselves that they prefer to not be told the full truth and would like for a family member to be told instead.
In conclusion, a doctor must always have the proper permission to go through with any type of procedure or treatment with a patient. Not only does this allow the patient to be aware of what is being done to their body, it gives them safety with receiving the correct care. Unless the patient is in critical condition and is unable to make the proper decisions for themselves, a healthcare provider may do what they believe is the absolute best decision to save their patient’s life. In all non-emergency situations, everything between a doctor and patient must have full informed consent and must follow through the full procedure of informed consent so that the patient is fully informed and understands everything that their healthcare provider had told them about their certain procedure. Not only does a doctor need to receive informed consent they must also be honest with their patient and gain trust unless they had been given the permission to withhold any information that the patient themselves might not want to hear. Regarding this, without proper informed consent the doctor will be punished for ignoring mandatory rules that are needed to keep their patient safe. With this whenever you are at the hospital because of some sort of accident or sickness you are able to know what doctors should be providing you and they must receive your informed consent. If this is not provided, you can make this issue be known because a hospital should be a safe space for people and not an area where people are constantly being taken advantage of, for the good of the doctors.
The Raider Press 