In cases of satisfactory medicine, or that practiced without a curative purpose, the informed consent must be very thorough.
Medical malpractice
In this specific case, a surgical procedure for vasectomy This would be considered a successful surgical outcome. In this type of procedure, the informed consent form warns of the specific risks of spontaneous recanalization, hematomas, and inflammation.
The case discussed below was heard by the Court of Second Instance of Santander, and its ruling was upheld by the First Chamber of the Provincial Court of Cantabria.
The patient filed a complaint regarding damages against healthcare professional that had been performed on him by the vasectomy Despite this, and following the procedure, he became the father of two children.
The claimant had been assured that she would no longer be fertile following the medical procedure, so it was clear that medical malpractice since the result was very different from what was intended.
To determine the liability of the doctor The necessary medical tests and examinations were conducted, and the results showed that there were no sperm in the semen, indicating that the procedure vasectomy had been correct because the results of those tests showed that the patient in question was infertile.
It was also verified that the ducts had not been re-channelled; therefore, the medical procedure had been technically sound.
Damages for medical malpractice
Nevertheless, the claimant requested damages by medical malpractice arguing that the informed consent form should have warned her of this risk—namely, that even though the procedure was appropriate, there could be cases of infertility.
The Court of First Instance and the Provincial Court ruled that the claimant, after the surgery and after having had her first child, had allowed a second birth to occur; they also found that her claim was time-barred and had therefore lapsed.
But we are not discussing this ruling because of these circumstances—since that would not be of interest to us—but rather because, in this specific case, spontaneous conception had occurred for no apparent reason medical, and of which there were very few reported cases in the literature medical.
The ruling states that, in this specific case and in the absence of a scientific explanation, spontaneous recanalization occurred, which caused the patient to be temporarily fertile; however, this was limited to these exceptional instances, which occurred even though no fertility was detected when tests were performed. Under these circumstances, the Court and the Appellate Court addressed the merits of the case to indicate that, given such an exceptional case without a scientific explanation, this could not be anticipated or foreseen and therefore could not be included in the informed consent form—which was the basis of the claimant’s complaint—and thus the healthcare professional He performed his duties professionally and without fault.
The Court of First Instance and the Court consider it proven that the final surgical procedure was the appropriate one and that all the tests performed consistently indicated the patient’s infertility; therefore, there could be no question of negligence and that, given that what happened had no scientific explanation, it was even less foreseeable given the exceptional nature of the case, and even less likely to be captured in the informed consent, since it is a virtually unknown or virtually nonexistent risk.
Therefore, since the medical procedure in accordance with the In accordance with professional standards and since the patient had accepted the consequences, the specific case did not warrant a ruling in favor of the claimant, and his request was denied damages by medical malpractice.
For more information about our law firm, please visit our website at Lawyer in Alicante
