Abstract

Medico-legal consent stands at the intersection of law, ethics, and medical practice, raising critical questions about the autonomy and obligations of healthcare professionals. The transition from paternalism to a consumer-driven model has fundamentally altered the dynamics of medico-legal consent. While it empowers patients, it also burdens physicians with increased legal risks and ethical dilemmas. To navigate this complexity, there is a need for clearer legal frameworks, enhanced communication strategies, and stronger institutional support for physicians. Striking a balance between patient rights and physician autonomy will ensure ethical, effective, and legally compliant healthcare practices. This article examines the nature of medico-legal consent, its role as a contract, and the complexities introduced by consumer-centric healthcare models. By analyzing informed consent as a legal requirement, this study underscores the implications for professional autonomy and patient care. Key legal principles are explored, including the tension between traditional patient-doctor relationships and contemporary consumer-driven dynamics.

• 1.   Dworkin, R. (2023). Autonomy and the Law in Medical Ethics. Journal of Legal Medicine, 45(2), 178–192.
• 2.   Gupta, R. (2022). “Informed Consent in India: Evolution and Current Challenges.” Indian Journal of Law and Health, 14(3), 245–258.
• 3.   Narayan, S. (2023). “The Consumerization of Healthcare: Implications for Medical Law.” Global Medical Ethics Review, 20(1), 50–65.
• 4.   Prakash, D., & Jain, M. (2023). “Medico-Legal Consent as a Contract: Bridging Ethics and Law.” Asian Journal of Medical Jurisprudence, 11(4), 12–29.
• 5.   Braddock CH III, Edwards KA, Hasenberg NM, Laidley TL, Levinson W. Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics. JAMA 1999; 282: 2313–2320.
• 6.   General Medical Council. Consent: Patients And Doctors Making Decisions Together; 2008. https://www.gmc-uk.org/ static/ documents/content/Consent_-_English_0617. pdf [accessed 10 November 2024].
• 7.   Joseph-Williams N, Lloyd A, Edwards A, Stobbart L, Tomson D, Macphail S et al. Implementing shared decision making in the NHS: lessons from the MAGIC programme. BMJ 2017; 357: j1744.
• 8.   Makoul G, Clayman ML. An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Educ Couns 2006; 60: 301– 312.
• 9.   Shah P, Thornton I, Turrin D, et al. Informed Consent. [Updated 2024 Oct 15]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-. Available from: https:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430827/.
• 10.   Chewning B, Bylund CL, Shah B, Arora NK, Gueguen JA, Makoul G. Patient preferences for shared decisions: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns 2012; 86: 9–18.
• 11.   Pollard S, Bansback N, Bryan S. Physician attitudes toward shared decision making: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns 2015; 98: 1046–1057.
• 12.   Benbassat J, Pilpel D, Tidhar M. Patients’ preferences for participation in clinical decision making: a review of published surveys. Behav Med 1998; 24: 81–88.
• 13.   Dunn M, Fulford KWM, Herring J, Handa A. Between the reasonable and the particular: deflating autonomy in the legal regulation of informed consent to medical treatment. Health Care Anal 2018; 30: 1–18.
• 14.   Hargraves I, Montori VM. Decision aids, empowerment, and shared decision making. BMJ 2014; 349: g5811.
• 15.   The Supreme Court. Montgomery (Appellant) v Lanarkshire Health Board (Respondent) (Scotland); 2015. https://www .supremecourt. uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0136-judgment.pdf [accessed 10 November 2024].
• 16.   Chan SW, Tulloch E, Cooper ES, Smith A, Wojcik W, Norman JE. Montgomery and informed consent: where are we now? BMJ 2017; 357: j2224.
• 17.   Reuben DB, Tinetti ME. Goal-oriented patient care – an alternative health outcomes paradigm. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 777–779.
• 18.   Joseph-Williams N, Elwyn G, Edwards A. Knowledge is not power for patients: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient-reported barriers and facilitators to shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns 2014; 94: 291–309.
• 19.   Van de Pol MHJ, Fluit CRMG, Lagro J, Slaats YHP, Olde Rikkert MGM, Lagro-Janssen ALM. Expert and patient consensus on a dynamic model for shared decision-making in frail older patients. Patient Educ Couns 2016; 99: 1069–1077.
• 20.   Wagenschieber, E., Blunck, D. Impact of reimbursement systems on patient care – a systematic review of systematic reviews. Health Econ Rev 14, 22 (2024). https://doi. org/10.1186/s13561-024-00487-6.
• 21.   Spector-Bagdady K. Reconceptualizing Consent for Direct-to-Consumer Health Services. American Journal of Law & Medicine. 2015;41(4):568-616. doi:10.1177/0098858815622191.
• 22.   Pallocci M, Treglia M, Passalacqua P, Tittarelli R, Zanovello C, De Luca L, Caparrelli V, De Luna V, Cisterna AM, Quintavalle G, Marsella LT. Informed Consent: Legal Obligation or Cornerstone of the Care Relationship? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Jan 24;20(3):2118. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20032118. PMID: 36767485; PMCID: PMC9915667.
• 23.   Consumer Survey in Contemporary Healthcare Management (2023) https:// www.nielsen.com/wp-content/uploads/ sites/2/2023/11/2023-Consumer-SurveyReport.pdf?trk=public_post_comment-text.
• 24.   Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, JosephWilliams N, Lloyd A, Kinnersley P et al. Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med 2012; 27: 1361–1367.
• 25.   Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCS). Consent: Supported Decision-Making – a Good Practice Guide. RCS: London, 2016.
• 26.   Montori VM, Kunneman M, Brito JP. Shared decision making and improving health care: the answer is not in. JAMA 2017; 318: 617–618.
• 27.   Lloyd A, Hayes P, Bell PRF, Naylor AR. The role of risk and benefit perception in informed consent for surgery. Med Decis Mak 2001; 21: 141–149.
• 28.   Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
• 29.   Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda & Anr. (2008) AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1385, 2008 AIR SCW 855, 2008 (2) ALL LJ 711, 2008 (2) AIR BOM R 354, (2008) 2 MAD LW 336, (2008) 1 RAJ LW 853, 2008 (2) SCC 1, (2008) 1 RECCIVR 525, (2008) 1 SCALE 442, (2008) 39 OCR 593, (2008) 2 PUN LR 213, (2008) 1 ICC 705, (2008) 1 CTC 392 (SC), (2008) 2 ACJ 747, (2008) 2 MAD LJ 662, (2008) 1 RECCRIR 670, (2008) 1 CPJ 56, 2008 (2) ALLMR (NOC) 41, (2008) 5 BOM CR 373.
• 30.   Indian Contract Act, 1872.
• 31.   Bailo L, Vergani L, Pravettoni G. Patient Preferences as Guidance for Information Framing in a Medical Shared Decision-Making Approach: The Bridge Between Nudging and Patient Preferences. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2019 Dec 24;13:2225-2231. doi: 10.2147/ PPA.S205819. PMID: 31920292; PMCID: PMC6935300.
• 32.   Rules & Regulations, NMC. (National Medical Commission) Registered Medical Practitioner (Professional Conduct) Regulations, 2023.
• 33.   Pozen, Robert C. “The Prudent Person Rule and ERISA: A Legal Perspective.” Financial Analysts Journal, vol. 33, no. 2, 1977, pp. 30–35. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4478020. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.
• 34.   Mark, D. Alicke, Stephanie, H. Weigel. The Reasonable Person Standard: Psychological and Legal Perspectives. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 2021. Vol. 17:123- 138 (Volume publication date October 2021) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurevlawsocsci-111620-020400.
• 35.   Dranseika V, Piasecki J, Waligora M. Relevant Information and Informed Consent in Research: In Defense of the Subjective Standard of Disclosure. Sci Eng Ethics. 2017 Feb;23(1):215- 225. doi: 10.1007/s11948-016-9755-4. Epub 2016 Jan 20. PMID: 26792438; PMCID: PMC5236070.
• 36.   Kim, Scott Y. H. Evaluation of Capacity to Consent to Treatment and Research. Oxford University Press. 2009. p. 18. ISBN 978- 0199747078.
• 37.   Murray B (Jul 2012). “Informed Consent: What Must a Physician Disclose to a Patient?”. AMA Journal of Ethics. 14 (7): 563–566.

Data Sharing Statement

Funding