Judicial Decisions on a Doctor's Duty to Inform Judicial Decisions on a Doctor's Duty to Inform
In a recently published ruling dated October 23, 2024, the judges of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) made a fundamental decision regarding the duty of the treating physician to inform. The ruling specifically addresses the question of how far a doctor is required to inform their patients comprehensively about the risks and alternatives of a treatment.
In the case at hand, a patient was recommended for surgery without being sufficiently informed about the possible complications. The patient subsequently experienced serious side effects that she might have declined if she had been fully informed. The BGH clarified that the duty to inform is not only a formal obligation but also an integral part of medical treatment. According to the court, it was crucial for the patient to receive all relevant information to make an informed decision.
The court emphasized that the duty to inform is not equivalent to merely transmitting information. Rather, the doctor must ensure that the patient understands and can process the information. The ruling also stated that the informing should occur early enough to give the patient sufficient time to consider all aspects and, if necessary, seek a second opinion.
Furthermore, the BGH recognized that the duty to inform also depends on the nature of the treatment to be performed. The more invasive a procedure is, the more thorough and comprehensive the informing must be.This ensures that patients not only make informed decisions but are also aware of the risks they are taking. The judges emphasized that in such cases, it is particularly important to provide comprehensive information about possible treatment alternatives.
This ruling could have far-reaching consequences for medical practice. In the future, doctors must fulfill their duty of disclosure more carefully and ensure that they provide their patients with all necessary information to uphold their legal rights to informed consent. The decision of the BGH is another step towards patient-centered medicine, aimed at transparency and comprehensibility.
Overall, the ruling underscores the importance of a trusting relationship between doctor and patient, in which the patient is not merely seen as a passive individual but is actively involved in the decision-making process.
Author: Anita Faake, Wednesday, November 6, 2024
