A patient is admitted with a rare inflammatory condition. After consulting colleagues, the treating doctor decides not to offer an experimental drug that carries serious side effects and uncertain benefits. The doctor does not mention the drug to the patient, who later learns of it and claims she should have been told, so she could decide for herself.
Which statement best reflects the legal position?

Question

A patient is admitted with a rare inflammatory condition. After consulting colleagues, the treating doctor decides not to offer an experimental drug that carries serious side effects and uncertain benefits. The doctor does not mention the drug to the patient, who later learns of it and claims she should have been told, so she could decide for herself.  
 Which statement best reflects the legal position?

Answer

The doctor was negligent because she failed to obtain the patient's consent to all available options.

Answer

The doctor was negligent because she failed to disclose a material risk that a reasonable patient would want to know.

Answer

The doctor breached her duty by failing to mention the alternative treatment, even those she judged unsuitable.

Answer

The doctor's decision about which treatments to offer is a matter of professional judgement assessed by reference to accepted medical practice.

Answer

The doctor was not negligent because patients have no legal right to be told about medical alternatives.

Crowdly

A patient is admitted with a rare inflammatory condition. After consulting colle...

Want instant access to all verified answers on moodle.kent.ac.uk?