Search

The surgeon's duty to inform patients determines the indication to a therapeutic and/ or diagnostic procedure. Despite ongoing information made available by the professional associations, the complaints against surgeons providing treatment are on the increase. Only careful health education information with records kept of the course of treatment adopted will safeguard the doctor in charge from patients' claims for damages. Case law demands that the doctor put the patient in a position to understand what is happening to him or her and for him or her to be able to make a decision freely. The patient's compliance after being provided with health education information makes the corpus delicti of bodily harm void. A special form is the matter of fact of "transfer negligence", when the doctor and/ or the hospital is aware, prior to execution of the treatment, that treatment is not possible lege artis. What continues to be applicable to health education information is that the more urgent the operation, the less information is indicated, so that in emergencies such operation can be completely done without. Apart from general risks, such as wound infection and/or the danger of thrombosis, information must also be provided about special risks and the course of any follow-up treatment. Legal practice shows that simply handing over forms is not sufficient. The patient may forgo treatment. Aborting an operation for purposes of providing health information is balancing between the patient's interests in immediate execution of the indicated measure, on the one hand, and the right of self-determination on the other. Should the operation be able to be aborted without any serious consequences for the patient, then it is to be thus done.What does principally apply in civil litigation is the rule of the burden of proof.

Whether an operation is indicated or not is a question that is a frequent subject of discussion between physicians and the legal front. As the state has the duty to protect its citizens, any physical surgical operation is legally seen as a personal injury. Only if the patient completely agrees to the surgery after being carefully informed about it is the element of criminal offense (personal injury) revoked. The obligation to disclose medical information on the surgery applies to information on the operation itself and on the possible consequences to the patient in his/her physical and mental social environment. In particular, the patient must be given all information about the risks that could arise during and after the surgery. The legislative aim of this is not to treat a list of questions and to mention all possible risks, but the legislator wants to oblige physicians to give patients who have reached the age of majority full information on diagnosis and therapy and to enable them to consider the pros and cons of the surgery carefully and then to agree to the operation or to refuse it. Besides the obligation to disclose medical information in emergency cases, the obligation to disclose medical information to minors also makes heavy demands on the physician. Examples of contraindications are given.

Legal consent to medical treatment requires comprehensive clarification and the patient's capability to consent. Minors under 14 years are usually not capable of consent -- the right to decide rests with the parents. With persons over 14 years the doctor must test for capability to consent. With adults incapable of consent the court-appointed guardian decides. In acute cases the doctor may act first and obtain permission afterwards. Contractual capability is decisive for a treatment contract to be effective and the doctor's claim for remuneration. Minors up to 7 years are absolutely contractually incapable. Since minors under 18 years are only limitedly contractually capable, the approval of the statutory guardian suffices. With contractually incapable adults the court-appointed guardian or in serious cases the Guardianship Court decides. The legal position is explained, using three sample cases.

Appendicitis is diagnosed by synoptic evaluation of typical symptoms, laboratory tests and sonography. The only therapy is a prompt operation. The main reason for appendicitis mortality is the condition not detected or not detected in time. The case of a 50 year old male who died from a non-detected perityphlitic appendicitis with abscesses in the liver is presented. Only if appendicitis can be reliably ruled out an operation is not indicated. The not performed surgical intervention is often interpreted as a treatment error by the courts. In doubt, an operation should therefore be performed.