WHEN THE PATIENT JUST SAYS ‘NO’

WITHDRAWAL OF CONSENT AND DOCTORS’ OBLIGATIONS

DR LUCY GIBBERD, MEDICOLEGAL CONSULTANT AT MEDICAL PROTECTION

The right to refuse treatment is fundamental in the ethics of modern medicine. In New Zealand this right was formalised in section 11 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

“11. Right to refuse to undergo medical treatment Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment.”

Right 7 of the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights covers the right to make an informed choice and give informed consent, and in subsection 7(7) it also lays out:

Every consumer has the right to refuse services and to withdraw consent to services.

The fact this is included in the Right concerned with informed consent shows how important it is that a patient should be fully informed if they are declining to consent to treatment.

Competent patients have the right to refuse treatment, even if their treating clinician thinks this decision is very unwise. If the clinician considers that the patient may be lacking in competence, then this must be clarified. If the patient lacks competence, other options for consent to treatment may need to be considered.

Doctors can think that when a patient has refused to undergo an operation or a treatment, their obligations finish there, but this is not the case. Every year, Medical Protection sees complaints that arise following patients refusing treatment.

The issue in this case is that the patient had initially agreed to the wide excision and only refused to proceed during a discussion in the pre-op area. The patient was having other skin surgeries that day, and the other surgeries went ahead. Because the discussion occurred in the pre-op area, it was not well documented and there was nothing in the notes recording that the patient had been told about the possible consequences of not going ahead with surgery. The surgeon in this case clearly could not proceed with the recommended surgery, in the face of the patient’s withdrawal of consent – but what could he have done to avoid a later complaint?

It is not uncommon for conversations that occur in the pre-op area to be poorly documented. Often the patient is being seen in between cases in theatre, there may be no facilities to dictate or record a file note, and it may not be obvious where such conversations should be recorded. There may also be concerns about the patient’s competence to make a reasoned decision in this situation, particularly if they have been given a pre-med. If a patient refuses treatment in this situation, it is probably better to arrange to meet with them later and have a full, documented discussion about the possible consequences of declining the treatment. If the patient does not wish to agree to or attend such a follow-up meeting, then a letter to the patient (and GP) recording the discussion, the matters set out below and the offer of a follow-up consultation should be sent.

Doctors are now increasingly aware that when they are ‘consenting’ a patient to have a procedure or treatment, they must carefully record the possible complications that have been explained to the patient. However, when a patient is refusing a recommended treatment, it is probably even more important that the conversation is carefully documented. Medical Protection would recommend the following:

• There should be clear written documentation that the patient has been offered a treatment but has declined it.

• There should be documentation that the possible consequences of declining the treatment have been explained to the patient, including the worst possible outcome.

• Alternative treatments should be discussed, and the pros and cons of these treatments should be discussed and documented.

• A follow-up appointment should be arranged to give the patient a chance to reconsider and to again discuss other treatment options.

• If possible, it is helpful if a relative or support person accompanies the patient to the follow-up appointment, both to support the patient and so that the family is aware of the choices the patient has been offered.

• There is no legal requirement for the patient to sign a document saying they have refused treatment. In fact, good contemporaneous notes, where it is clear the patient has been warned of the possible outcome of declining treatment, are probably better than a signed document where this detail has not been clearly laid out.

• If a patient refuses treatment, it should be made clear to the patient whether it is possible to undertake the treatment in the future if they change their mind, and if so, what pathway the patient would follow to achieve this.

• Giving the patient written information about the proposed treatment is always helpful, and exactly what has been provided should be documented in the notes.

• If there are any concerns that the patient may not be competent to consent to or decline treatment, a formal competence assessment may be advisable.

As an example:

Mr A was a 72-year-old man, on immunosuppressive treatment following transplant surgery. He presented with a biopsy-proven, histologically aggressive, squamous cell carcinoma near the bridge of his nose. When he presented for a wide excision, the lesion was not visible to the naked eye, as it had been largely removed by the biopsy. The patient questioned why further surgery was necessary and said he did not want to go ahead unless the surgeon could guarantee he would ‘get it all out’. The surgeon explained he could not make that guarantee, so the patient declined to go ahead with the surgery and opted for ‘close observation’ as an alternative. When the cancer later became locally invasive and required majorly disfiguring surgery, the patient complained that his refusal of treatment was not fully informed, as he had not been aware of the possible consequences of refusing surgery.

THIS IS GENERAL ADVICE. MEDICAL PROTECTION MEMBERS ARE WELCOME TO CALL 0800 225 5677 TO TALK TO ONE OF OUR ADVISERS TO LEARN MORE.