A 14-year-old patient requires an emergency appendicectomy, but parents are unavailable and uncontactable. Which of the following provides the correct legal/ethical framework for proceeding?
- A Emergency doctrine — implied consent applies; treatment to preserve life without awaiting guardian consent is lawful ✓
- B Treatment must be deferred until a parent or guardian signs consent regardless of urgency
- C Consent of the patient alone is sufficient because the Majority Act 1875 classifies medical decisions as an exception
- D Court order must be obtained before any emergency treatment of a minor
Correct answer: A. Emergency doctrine — implied consent applies; treatment to preserve life without awaiting guardian consent is lawful
Explanation
The emergency doctrine (doctrine of implied consent in emergencies) recognises that when a patient — whether minor or adult — faces a life-threatening emergency and consent cannot be obtained, the law implies consent to lifesaving treatment. A reasonable person would consent to emergency treatment; therefore, surgeons are not liable for battery or negligence for providing necessary emergency care. Indian jurisprudence and medical ethics support this position. Deferring life-saving treatment awaiting consent is itself potentially negligent.
Reference: The Essentials of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology (Narayan Reddy), 34th ed.
High-yield for: NEET PGINI-CETNExTFMGEUSMLEPLABMRCP
Written and medically reviewed by the StethoPrep medical team.