The Montgomery v Lanarkshire case has been seen as a landmark case for consent. The wording in this case may well have an implication for Treatment Coordinators. I am aware that most practices use treatment coordinators well, they are highly trained and good ethical communicators. However some are not and they are used to save time in getting appropriate consent and if they are not qualified DCPs (or perhaps even if they are) could well be viewed as “sales advisers”.
Don’t shoot the messenger, I know it’s about “surgery” but I think this applies across the board for any procedure or process that could be deemed to be cosmetic.
Here’s the opening paragraph.
Although a decision to undergo cosmetic surgery is rarely taken lightly, Penningtons Manches often hears from clients who with hindsight feel that they were not advised fully prior to their procedure. Investigations may establish that the consenting process has not been as thorough as it needed to have been. Patients may believe that they understand the pros and cons of any planned procedure and that they have ‘consented’ purely because they have signed a consent form. This is not necessarily so. It has been well established for some time that consent should not be obtained by just any doctor, regardless of grade or specialty, let alone by a sales adviser, but by a doctor of appropriate seniority and experience to understand the procedure, its risks and benefits. Ideally consent should be obtained sufficiently in advance of the procedure and certainly more than 24 hours beforehand.
The full article is here: