Announcements A Joint Statement on Technical, legal, ethical and implementation concerns regarding Aarogya Setu and other apps introduced during COVID-19 in India by Jan Swasthya Abhiyan (JSA), Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), Forum for Medical Ethics Society (FMES), and All India People’s Science Network (AIPSN)   |   Submission to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on behalf of Hub5 (HEaL Institute, APU, Seher-CHSJ, and IAPH) – COPASAH on human rights issues confronted by ASHAS and ANMs during the Covid-19 pandemic | Aug 7, 2020   |   Letter to MMC by FMES, PUCL-MH, FAOW, and MFC urging to restore its order suspending licenses of two doctors accused of abetting the suicide of Dr Payal Tadvi

Comment on “Consent to treatment: practice vis-à-vis principle” by BK Bastia

Farhat Moazam

DOI: 10.20529/IJME.2008.042


Dr Kumar Bastia’s article . focuses on one of the important components of patient-physician interactions – ensuring that consent by a competent patient for therapy or surgical intervention is given voluntarily and after provision of relevant information that has been clearly understood by the patient. The author’s aim, a salutary one, is to alert physicians to the basic elements of an informed consent that are often overlooked or misunderstood by medical practitioners, and several good points are made in this article. However, perhaps intentionally or not, the author seems to transform the informed consent into primarily a legal contract between a “consumer” and an individual (doctor) who “has to render service”, and a tool of defence for physicians against malpractice suits. This approach runs the risk of reducing a critical component (the consent) of a fiduciary relationship grounded in the ethical duties of health care professionals towards the distressed who seek their help, to little more than a contract akin to one between a car owner and a mechanic

Full Text





There are currently no refbacks.

Article Views

PDF Downloads

Click here to support US