The numeric threshold for the disclosure of risk: outdated and inapplicable to surgical consent

A selection of abstracts of clinically relevant papers from other journals. The abstracts on this page have been chosen and edited by John R. Radford.

Abstract

'...only the patient can judge what risk is material to him or her, irrespective of its frequency of occurrence', yet a dentist should demonstrate perspicacity.

Main

Wheeler R. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2012; 94: 81–82

Informing a patient that they could suffer permanent sensory dysfunction after the extraction of a wisdom tooth may be why that patient declines this therapeutic procedure. Yet only approximately 1% of patients experience permanent sensory dysfunction. Numerous jurisdictions have maintained that a risk as high as 10% should be the bar for disclosure. This crude numerical threshold has been overhauled. For example in Australian case law, a reasonable standard of care would not be discharged if a 14,000:1 risk of sympathetic ophthalmia (leading to possible blindness) following surgery, had not been disclosed. Lord Woolf has asserted that the correct standard for disclose is '...a significant risk which would affect the judgement of the reasonable patient.'