A surgeon performs an appendix removal on a patient who has signed a valid consent form for the procedure. During surgery, the surgeon notices a suspicious mole on the patient’s back and removes it without consulting the patient. The mole turns out to be non-cancerous. If the patient sues the surgeon for battery, is the patient likely to succeed?
Yes, because the surgeon acted without obtaining consent for the removal of the mole.
No, because the surgeon acted in the patient’s best interest by removing the suspicious mole.
Yes, because the removal of the mole was not a medical emergency requiring immediate action.
No, because the patient had already signed a consent form for a surgical procedure, which covers the surgeon’s actions.
Battery occurs when there is an intentional, unauthorized harmful or offensive contact. Here, although the patient signed a consent form for the appendix removal, this did not extend to the removal of the mole. Legally, consent must be specific to the procedure, and the surgeon exceeded the scope of the consent by removing the mole without consulting the patient. Informed consent is a critical factor; unauthorized contact, even if well-meaning, satisfies the requirements for battery. The surgeon’s good intentions or the ultimate health outcome do not negate the lack of consent. Answers addressing this incorrectly assume consent for one procedure extends indiscriminately to others or that beneficial outcomes override lack of authorization.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is informed consent in medical procedures?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Can consent for one procedure cover multiple interventions?