The right for a patient to choose a specific surgeon they trust
- 13.11.2015
- HannahBottomley
- Clinical-negligence, Opinion, Clinical-negligence, Opinion, Clinical-negligence, Opinion, Clinical-negligence, Opinion, Clinical-negligence, Opinion, Clinical-negligence, Opinion, Clinical-negligence, Opinion, Clinical-negligence, Opinion
he right to choose your surgeon is an interesting topic and I’m sure an emotive topic for many. As Nigel Poole explores in his recent article, the right to choose a surgeon with whom the patient has a relationship and trust in seems to be supported by the law.
The recent case which Mr Poole QC delves into relates to an individual patient who had been recommended to see a specific surgeon. The patient had met the surgeon, had confidence in his ability to treat her and carry out the surgery properly and had consented to the surgery on the basis that she understood the surgeon would be conducting the surgery.
On the day, however, the patient met with another surgeon just moments before the procedure and whilst she was not happy felt she had gone too far to back out of surgery at that time.
Unfortunately for this patient she suffered a complication and sustained injury. The complication and injury the patient suffered was not an unknown complication of the procedure and the surgeon who had conducted the surgery had not been found to have made a mistake, or breached his duty.
The Court however found that the patient was entitled to have the surgery performed by her chosen surgeon, had she been made aware he was not available she would have refused surgery on the day that was offered and would have undergone the procedure on another day. Caselaw therefore enabled the patient to claim that surgery on another day, with her preferred and chosen surgeon, would not have resulted in the same complication and injury.
I find this decision very interesting because it gives the power of choosing those who are going to treat you on the individual patient themselves, however I wonder how this would apply in practice.
I think that there is much to be taken from this case by patients and doctors alike. A doctor who is recommended and chosen by a patient may be more inclined to continue to treat that patient rather than have multiple doctors see and treat them and this could result in continuity of care, which I consider can only be a good thing.
It may also encourage more relationships to be developed between doctors and their patients although in reality, with the ever-growing workload on doctors, I don’t know whether this would ever be feasible.
From a patient point of view I am heartened that the Courts seem to want to support individual choices and anything which gives power to the patient can only be a positive step forward in my eyes.