Ethics, Consent, and Capacity in Anaesthesia

Quick Answer

Exam Essentials - ANZCA Professional Skills

Valid consent requires three elements: capacity, voluntariness, and understanding of relevant information. In anaesthesia, this includes discussion of the proposed procedure, anaesthetic options, material risks (including those with >1% incidence or severe consequences), and alternatives including no treatment.

Capacity Assessment Framework:

• Understand the nature and purpose of the proposed treatment
• Retain the information long enough to make a decision
• Use or weigh the information in the decision-making process
• Communicate the decision (by any means)

Key Legal Principles:

• Adults are presumed to have capacity unless demonstrated otherwise
• Capacity is decision-specific and may fluctuate
• A patient with capacity can refuse any treatment, even life-saving
• In emergencies without consent, treat under "necessity" doctrine
• Advance care directives are legally binding in all Australian states/territories and New Zealand when validly executed

---

Legal and Ethical Framework

Sources of Authority

Australian Context:

• Common Law: Established through court decisions (e.g., Rogers v Whitaker [1992] HCA 58 - material risk standard)
• Statute Law: Varies by jurisdiction
  • Victoria: Medical Treatment Planning and Decisions Act 2016
  • New South Wales: Guardianship Act 1987, Mental Health Act 2007
  • Queensland: Guardianship and Administration Act 2000
  • Western Australia: Guardianship and Administration Act 1990
  • South Australia: Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act 1995
  • Tasmania: Guardianship and Administration Act 1995
  • ACT: Guardianship and Management of Property Act 1991
  • Northern Territory: Adult Guardianship Act 1988
• AHPRA Code of Conduct: Good Medical Practice: A Code of Conduct for Doctors in Australia (2022)

New Zealand Context:

• Common Law: Based on English precedents and local decisions
• Statute Law:
  • Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994
  • Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights 1996
  • Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988
  • Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992
• Medical Council of New Zealand: Good Medical Practice (2020)

ANZCA Professional Standards

PS02(G) Position Statement on Consent and Capacity (2024):

• Anaesthetists must obtain valid consent before administering anaesthesia
• Consent may be written, verbal, or implied (depending on procedure complexity)
• For complex procedures or high-risk patients, written consent is recommended
• Information provided must include nature of anaesthesia, material risks, alternatives, and consequences of refusal
• Special considerations for patients with impaired capacity, language barriers, or cultural factors

PG67(G) Guideline for End-of-Life Care (2022):

• Decision-making capacity assessment is crucial for patients considering surgery at end-of-life
• Advance care planning discussions should occur early in the disease trajectory
• Goals of Care framework assists in determining appropriate interventions
• Clinicians must understand jurisdictional variations in advance care directive legislation

---

Informed Consent

Elements of Valid Consent

1. Capacity (Competence): The patient must have the ability to make the specific decision at the specific time.

2. Voluntariness: The decision must be made freely without coercion, undue influence, or duress.

3. Information: The patient must receive adequate information to make an informed decision.

Information Disclosure Standards

Material Risk Standard (Rogers v Whitaker [1992]): A doctor has a duty to warn of a material risk, defined as:

• A risk that a reasonable person in the patient's position would attach significance to
• A risk that the doctor knows or ought to know the particular patient would attach significance to

Practical Application:

• Risks with >1% incidence generally require disclosure
• Risks with severe consequences (death, paralysis, blindness) require disclosure even if rare
• Patient-specific factors (occupation, hobbies, comorbidities) influence what is "material"
• Common anaesthetic risks: dental damage (1:450), awareness (1:1000-1:1700), sore throat (30-50%)

Information to Provide:

1. Nature of anaesthesia: General, regional, sedation, or local
2. Procedure details: Intubation, lines, monitoring
3. Material risks: Specific to patient and procedure
4. Alternatives: Other anaesthetic techniques, no anaesthesia
5. Consequences of refusal: Implications of declining treatment
6. Postoperative care: Pain management, recovery expectations

Consent Process

Preoperative Assessment:

• Introduce yourself and role clearly
• Establish rapport and assess understanding
• Confirm identity and planned procedure
• Verify documentation (allergies, medications, advance directives)

Information Delivery:

• Use clear, jargon-free language
• Check understanding frequently
• Provide written information where available
• Allow time for questions
• Document discussion

Documentation Requirements:

• Date and time of consent discussion
• Who obtained consent and their relationship to care team
• Information provided
• Questions asked and answers given
• Patient's expressed understanding
• Decision made

Special Consent Circumstances

Research Participation:

• Additional ethical oversight (Human Research Ethics Committee)
• Comprehensive information about study nature, randomization, withdrawal rights
• Separate consent form from routine care consent
• Clear distinction between research and clinical care

Blood Product Administration:

• Specific consent required for blood transfusion
• Information about alternatives (cell salvage, tranexamic acid)
• Documentation of patient preferences
• Religious or cultural considerations

Teaching Involvement:

• Disclosure of trainee participation in procedure
• Supervision arrangements
• Patient's right to refuse trainee involvement

---

Capacity Assessment

Legal Presumption

Adults (≥18 years in Australia, ≥16 years in New Zealand for healthcare decisions) are presumed to have capacity unless demonstrated otherwise. The burden of proof lies with those asserting incapacity.

Functional Capacity Test

Capacity is assessed functionally, not by diagnosis or age. The test is decision-specific and time-specific.

Four Elements (Re C [1994]; Re MB [1997]):

1. Understanding:

• Can the patient comprehend the nature of the proposed treatment?
• Do they understand the purpose and potential outcomes?
• Can they grasp the immediate and longer-term consequences?

2. Retaining Information:

• Can the patient hold the relevant information long enough to make a decision?
• Brief memory lapses do not necessarily indicate incapacity if the patient can recall key facts when prompted

3. Weighing Information:

• Can the patient use the information in the decision-making process?
• Can they compare alternatives and assess relative merits?
• Are they able to reason through consequences?

4. Communicating Decision:

• Can the patient convey their choice (by any means)?
• Communication may be verbal, written, or through assistive devices
• Consistent decision is not required; patient may change their mind

Factors Affecting Capacity

Temporary Impairments (Reversible):

• Pain
• Acute illness or infection
• Hypoxia
• Sedative medications
• Hypoglycaemia
• Alcohol intoxication
• Emotional distress

Chronic/Progressive Impairments:

• Dementia (Alzheimer's, vascular, Lewy body)
• Intellectual disability
• Acquired brain injury
• Severe mental illness (psychosis, depression with cognitive impairment)
• Neurodevelopmental conditions

Impact of Anaesthesia on Capacity:

• Pre-medication may impair capacity
• Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (especially in elderly)
• Emergence delirium
• Residual sedation

Capacity Assessment Tools

Structured Approach:

1. Introduction and Rapport Building

   • Explain assessment purpose
   • Ensure comfortable environment
   • Minimize distractions

2. Medical History and Orientation

   • Assess baseline cognitive function
   • Orientation to time, place, person
   • Understanding of current situation

3. Decision-Specific Inquiry

   • What treatment is being offered?
   • Why is it being recommended?
   • What are the benefits?
   • What are the risks?
   • What alternatives exist?
   • What happens if treatment is refused?

4. Reasoning Assessment

   • Why have you made this decision?
   • What factors influenced you?
   • Can you explain your reasoning?

5. Documentation

   • Detailed notes of assessment
   • Specific findings for each element
   • Conclusion with rationale

Formal Assessment Instruments:

• MMSE (Mini-Mental State Examination): Screening tool, not diagnostic
• MoCA (Montreal Cognitive Assessment): More sensitive for mild impairment
• MacCAT-T (MacArthur Competency Assessment Tool-Treatment): Structured interview for treatment decisions
• ACE-III (Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination): Comprehensive cognitive assessment

Clinical Pearl: Capacity can fluctuate. A patient lacking capacity in the morning may have capacity after treatment of infection or optimization of analgesia. Always consider whether temporary factors are impairing capacity before concluding incapacity is permanent.

Decision-Making Hierarchy When Patient Lacks Capacity

1. Advance Care Directive (if valid):

• Legally binding instructions from when patient had capacity
• Must be followed unless demonstrably invalid or inapplicable

2. Substitute Decision Maker (SDM):

• Statutory health attorney (appointed under legislation)
• Enduring guardian/power of attorney
• Person responsible (spouse, carer, close relative)
• Guardian appointed by tribunal

3. Best Interests Principle:

• What would the patient want if they had capacity?
• Substituted judgment standard
• Consider previously expressed wishes, values, beliefs
• Consult with family, friends, caregivers
• Least restrictive option

---

Advance Directives and Advance Care Planning

Types of Advance Directives

Common Law Advance Directives:

• Made when patient had capacity
• Clear, specific instructions about future treatment
• Legally binding if valid and applicable to current circumstances
• Recognized in all Australian jurisdictions except Queensland
• Recognized in New Zealand

Statutory Advance Directives:

• Created under specific legislation
• Prescribed forms and witnessing requirements
• Vary by jurisdiction in content and scope
• Generally provide stronger legal protection for clinicians

Advance Care Plans (Non-Binding):

• Document values, preferences, goals
• Guide decision-making but not legally binding instructions
• Useful for substituted judgment decisions
• May be formal or informal

Jurisdictional Variations

Victoria (Medical Treatment Planning and Decisions Act 2016):

• Instructional Directive: Binding refusal or consent to specific treatments
• Values Directive: Non-binding statement of values and preferences
• Medical Treatment Decision Maker: Appointed substitute decision maker

New South Wales:

• Common law advance directives only
• No specific statute governing advance care directives
• Recognized under common law principles

Queensland (Powers of Attorney Act 1998):

• Advance Health Directive: Statutory form for specific treatment decisions
• Statement of Choices: Non-binding preferences document

New Zealand (Advance Directives - Common Law):

• Recognized under common law
• Must be valid (made with capacity, clear, specific, applicable)
• Considered binding if reasonable doubt about validity
• Validity tested if circumstances changed since directive made

Validity Requirements

For an Advance Directive to be Valid:

1. Made with capacity: Patient understood nature and effect
2. Voluntary: No coercion or undue influence
3. Clear and specific: Unambiguous about what is refused/consented
4. Informed: Patient understood consequences
5. Applicable to current circumstances: Relevant to present situation

Factors Potentially Invalidating Directives:

• Made under coercion
• Vague or ambiguous language
• Patient lacked capacity at time of making
• Significant change in circumstances since made
• New treatment options not available when directive made

Clinical Application

When Presented with an Advance Directive:

1. Verify Authenticity:

   • Check document appears genuine
   • Confirm witnessing requirements met
   • Verify date and patient identity

2. Assess Validity:

   • Was patient competent when made?
   • Does it address current situation?
   • Is language clear and unambiguous?

3. Determine Applicability:

   • Does the situation match what the patient anticipated?
   • Are treatments mentioned relevant to current options?
   • Have circumstances changed significantly?

4. Decision and Documentation:

   • Follow directive if valid and applicable
   • Document reasoning if not following
   • Seek legal advice if uncertain

Emergency Situations:

• If doubt about validity or applicability, treat to preserve life
• Document actions and reasoning
• Review when situation stabilized

---

Refusal of Treatment

Right to Refuse

A competent adult has the absolute right to refuse any medical treatment, even if:

• The treatment is life-saving
• The refusal appears irrational to others
• The refusal may result in death
• Family or healthcare team disagree

Legal Basis:

• Bodily integrity is a fundamental right
• Medical treatment without consent constitutes battery
• Right to refuse is protected under common law and human rights legislation

Assessing Refusal

Capacity Assessment is Paramount:

• Ensure patient has capacity at time of refusal
• Rule out temporary factors (pain, hypoxia, sedation)
• Consider whether mental illness is impairing capacity
• Document assessment clearly

Understanding the Refusal:

• Does the patient understand the consequences?
• Are they aware of what will happen if treatment not provided?
• Do they understand the nature of their condition?
• Are they aware of alternatives?

Exploring Reasons:

• Why are they refusing?
• What concerns or fears do they have?
• Are there misunderstandings that can be addressed?
• Would additional information change their decision?

Managing Refusals

Communication Strategies:

• Listen actively without judgment
• Explore concerns empathetically
• Provide clear, honest information
• Avoid persuasion or coercion
• Offer time to reconsider (if not emergency)
• Document conversation thoroughly

When Refusal Appears Uninformed:

• Ensure all relevant information provided
• Check understanding
• Clarify misconceptions
• Offer second opinion
• Consider whether cultural or religious factors involved

High-Risk Refusals:

• Involve senior clinicians
• Consider ethics consultation
• Document extensively
• Seek legal advice if uncertain
• Consider mental health assessment if capacity in doubt

Special Circumstances

Refusal Based on Religious/Cultural Beliefs:

• Respect sincerely held beliefs
• Explore whether accommodation possible
• Consider impact on treatment efficacy
• Involve cultural liaisons if appropriate
• Document discussion and agreed approach

Refusal by Patients with Borderline Capacity:

• Maximize capacity (treat pain, optimize environment)
• Detailed capacity assessment
• Involve substitute decision makers if appropriate
• Least restrictive approach
• Regular reassessment

Refusal of Life-Saving Treatment:

• Ensure capacity assessment is thorough
• Explore whether depression or hopelessness is factor
• Consider mental health review if concern about capacity
• Document extensively
• Respect autonomous decision if capacity confirmed

---

Indigenous Health Considerations

Cultural Safety in Consent and Capacity Assessment

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples:

Engaging with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients regarding consent, capacity, and advance care planning requires deep cultural understanding and respect for traditional decision-making structures. Healthcare delivery must acknowledge that many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities operate within collective decision-making frameworks rather than purely individual autonomous models.

Kinship and Decision-Making: In many Aboriginal communities, medical decisions are not solely the prerogative of the individual patient. Extended family networks, particularly Elders, may play crucial roles in healthcare decisions. This collective approach reflects cultural values of reciprocity, obligation, and interconnectedness. Clinicians must respect these processes while ensuring the legal requirements for consent are met. The concept of "family" may extend far beyond nuclear family to include aunts, uncles, cousins, and community members who hold significant influence over healthcare choices.

Sorry Business and End-of-Life Decision-Making: The period of "Sorry Business" following death carries profound cultural significance. Discussions about organ donation, advance care planning, or end-of-life care must be approached with extreme sensitivity to cultural protocols. In some communities, mentioning death or planning for death is culturally inappropriate and may be considered to bring bad fortune. Healthcare providers must work with Aboriginal Health Workers and Liaison Officers to navigate these cultural sensitivities appropriately.

Historical Context and Mistrust: The historical legacy of colonial healthcare practices, including forced removals and unethical medical experimentation, has created understandable mistrust of Western medical institutions among many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This history impacts willingness to engage with advance care planning, consent processes, and discussions about capacity. Building trust requires time, consistency, and culturally safe practice. Indigenous patients may be reluctant to sign documents or engage in formal planning processes due to concerns about how these might be used against them or their families.

Communication Considerations: Language barriers extend beyond English proficiency. Conceptual differences regarding health, illness, death, and medical intervention may require careful explanation and use of culturally appropriate interpreters. Visual aids and plain language are essential. The use of medical jargon can be particularly alienating and may be interpreted as disempowering or dismissive of traditional knowledge.

Capacity Assessment Nuances: Standard capacity assessment tools may not account for cultural factors that influence decision-making. A patient may defer to family members not due to incapacity but as a culturally appropriate expression of respect and collective responsibility. Clinicians must distinguish between cultural practices and genuine cognitive impairment. The assessment should occur in a culturally safe environment, potentially with the support of Aboriginal Health Workers who can provide cultural context.

Advance Care Planning: Formal written advance directives may be culturally inappropriate for some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients. Oral traditions and kinship-based decision-making may be preferred. Healthcare providers should explore culturally appropriate ways of documenting preferences, potentially through recorded discussions with family involvement. The Organ and Tissue Authority (OTA) has developed specific resources for discussing organ donation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, recognizing the cultural complexities involved.

Māori Health Considerations:

Whānau Decision-Making: For Māori patients, healthcare decisions typically involve whānau (extended family) and may require consultation with kaumatua (Elders). The concept of whanaungatanga (relationships and connections) means that individual health decisions affect the collective. Consent processes must allow for whānau involvement and respect the holistic Māori model of health (te whare tapa whā), which encompasses physical, mental, social, and spiritual dimensions.

Tikanga and Healthcare: Tikanga (customary practices and protocols) govern many aspects of healthcare engagement. Karakia (prayers or incantations) may be important before procedures. The tapu (sacred) and noa (common) states may influence how patients interact with medical environments and personnel. Understanding these concepts is essential for respectful consent and capacity discussions.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi Obligations: Healthcare providers in New Zealand have obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi to ensure Māori health equity. This includes providing culturally safe consent processes, ensuring Māori have equitable access to advance care planning, and respecting Māori models of decision-making. The Medical Council of New Zealand emphasizes cultural competence and safety as core professional standards.

Advance Care Planning: Māori may prefer to discuss end-of-life planning within whānau contexts rather than through formal individual documentation. The preference for dying at home surrounded by whānau is common, and advance care planning should support this where possible. Discussion of organ donation requires sensitivity to cultural beliefs about the body after death and the importance of returning to ancestral lands (urupā).

Communication: Use of te reo Māori greetings and concepts demonstrates respect. Māori Health Workers can provide invaluable cultural guidance in consent and capacity discussions. Creating a culturally safe environment may include offering karakia, acknowledging whānau hierarchies, and understanding that silence may indicate reflection rather than lack of understanding.

---

ANZCA Exam Focus

Common SAQ Topics

Question 1: Capacity Assessment (20 marks)

A 78-year-old man is scheduled for emergency laparotomy for bowel obstruction. He has a background of dementia and is acutely confused. He is refusing surgery and trying to leave the hospital. His daughter states he would "never want surgery."

Outline your approach to assessing capacity and determining whether surgery can proceed.

Model Answer Framework:

Assessment of Capacity (10 marks):

• Apply four-element functional test (understand, retain, weigh, communicate)
• Identify potentially reversible factors causing confusion
• Document specific findings for each capacity element
• Note that capacity is decision-specific and time-specific

Substitute Decision-Making (6 marks):

• Check for advance care directive
• Identify substitute decision maker hierarchy
• Apply best interests or substituted judgment standard
• Consult with family regarding patient's previously expressed wishes

Emergency Considerations (4 marks):

• Life-threatening emergency permits treatment under necessity doctrine
• Document reasoning thoroughly
• Seek second opinion from senior colleague
• Review when patient recovers capacity

Question 2: Refusal of Blood Products (20 marks)

A 42-year-old Jehovah's Witness is scheduled for elective total hip replacement. She has signed an advance directive refusing all blood products. Her husband, who is not a Jehovah's Witness, has approached you privately stating she was coerced by the church and he wants you to transfuse if necessary.

Discuss the ethical and legal issues and how you would proceed.

Model Answer Framework:

Legal Framework (8 marks):

• Competent adults have absolute right to refuse treatment
• Advance directives are legally binding if valid
• Coercion undermines voluntariness and validity of consent
• Spouse cannot override patient's autonomous decision

Assessment of Validity (6 marks):

• Assess capacity and voluntariness independently
• Explore concerns with patient privately
• Determine if decision is freely made
• Consult hospital ethics committee if significant concern

Clinical Management (4 marks):

• Optimize preoperative haemoglobin
• Use cell salvage, tranexamic acid, restrictive transfusion strategies
• Consider staged surgery if high risk
• Document agreed approach clearly

Documentation (2 marks):

• Document capacity assessment
• Record discussion with patient and husband separately
• Note specific refusal and consequences explained

Viva Scenarios

Scenario 1: Consent for Complex Surgery

You are the anaesthetist for a patient scheduled for Whipple procedure. The surgeon has obtained consent. You are seeing the patient preoperatively.

Examiner Questions:

1. "What additional information do you need to provide as the anaesthetist?"
2. "The patient asks about the risk of awareness. How do you respond?"
3. "How would your approach differ if the patient had limited English proficiency?"

Key Points to Address:

• Anaesthetic-specific risks (intubation, lines, monitoring)
• Postoperative pain management options
• ICU admission likelihood
• Risk of awareness with paralytic use
• Need for interpreter services
• Cultural considerations in information delivery

Scenario 2: End-of-Life Decision-Making

An 85-year-old woman with advanced dementia presents with hip fracture. She has an advance directive refusing "heroic measures." Her family wants her to have surgery.

Examiner Questions:

1. "How would you assess the validity of the advance directive?"
2. "What is your role in this multidisciplinary decision?"
3. "How would you approach the family discussion?"

Key Points to Address:

• Directive made with capacity?
• Does it apply to current situation?
• Goals of care framework application
• Anaesthetic risks in context of frailty and dementia
• Multidisciplinary team involvement
• Family communication strategies

---

Case Studies

Case 1: Complex Capacity Assessment

Scenario: A 67-year-old woman with bipolar disorder is scheduled for mastectomy. She is currently manic, with pressured speech, grandiose ideas, and impaired sleep. She is enthusiastically consenting to surgery, stating she "needs it immediately to save the world."

Issues:

• Manic episode may impair capacity
• Enthusiasm does not equal understanding
• Need to determine if decision is symptom of mental illness
• Time-critical nature of cancer surgery

Approach:

1. Psychiatric Consultation:

   • Urgent review by psychiatry
   • Assessment of whether mania impairs capacity
   • Consider treatment of mania if possible

2. Capacity Assessment:

   • Can she understand nature of surgery?
   • Does she appreciate it's for cancer treatment?
   • Can she weigh risks and benefits rationally?
   • Is consent influenced by grandiose delusions?

3. Decision Options:

   • If lacks capacity: defer surgery, treat mania, use substitute decision maker
   • If retains capacity: proceed with detailed documentation
   • Emergency override: if cancer is immediately life-threatening

4. Documentation:

   • Detailed mental state examination
   • Specific capacity findings
   • Consultation opinions
   • Decision rationale

Case 2: Cultural Complexities in Consent

Scenario: A 35-year-old Aboriginal woman requires emergency Caesarean section for fetal distress. Her husband is demanding to make all decisions, stating it's "not a woman's place." The patient appears distressed but is not speaking.

Issues:

• Gender-based decision-making conflicts with autonomy principles
• Potential coercion or disempowerment
• Emergency situation limiting time for discussion
• Cultural practices vs. individual rights

Approach:

1. Cultural Safety:

   • Involve Aboriginal Health Worker or Liaison Officer urgently
   • Create culturally safe environment (female staff if possible)
   • Understand kinship structures and appropriate decision-makers

2. Assessment:

   • Speak with patient privately if possible
   • Assess capacity independent of cultural context
   • Determine if she agrees with husband's involvement
   • Identify any safety concerns

3. Decision-Making:

   • In emergency, treat under necessity doctrine if no valid refusal
   • Respect cultural processes while protecting patient autonomy
   • Document thoroughly including cultural considerations
   • Defer to patient if she expresses wishes

4. Follow-up:

   • Address power dynamics in postoperative period
   • Connect with social work if safety concerns
   • Provide culturally appropriate support

---

Professional Standards and Quality Improvement

Documentation Excellence

Essential Elements of Consent Documentation:

• Date, time, and location of discussion
• Names and roles of all participants
• Nature of procedure fully described
• Material risks disclosed with specific percentages where applicable
• Patient questions and responses
• Alternatives discussed including no treatment
• Patient's expressed understanding
• Final decision and any conditions
• Signature of patient and witness

Capacity Assessment Documentation:

• Specific findings for each of four elements
• Reversible factors assessed and addressed
• Consultations obtained
• Reasoning for capacity determination
• Evidence of patient's reasoning process

Audit and Quality Metrics

Key Performance Indicators:

• Percentage of high-risk procedures with documented consent
• Completeness of risk disclosure documentation
• Timeliness of consent (not obtained immediately pre-procedure)
• Incidence of consent-related complaints or incidents
• Compliance with advance directive policies

Incident Review: All consent or capacity-related incidents should trigger:

• Root cause analysis
• Review of documentation practices
• Staff education if knowledge gaps identified
• Policy review if system issues identified

Maintaining Competence

Continuing Professional Development:

• Regular updates on jurisdictional law changes
• Ethics and communication skills workshops
• Cultural safety training
• Review of professional standards and guidelines
• Simulation-based training for difficult conversations

---

Practical Tools and Resources

Capacity Assessment Checklist

Pre-Assessment:

• Review patient's medical history
• Identify potential reversible factors
• Optimize environment (privacy, comfort, time)
• Gather collateral history if appropriate
• Have necessary information about proposed treatment available

Assessment (Four Elements):

1. Understanding:

• Patient can describe the nature of their medical condition
• Patient can explain the proposed treatment
• Patient understands the purpose of treatment
• Patient comprehends potential outcomes (benefits and risks)
• Patient appreciates consequences of refusal

2. Retaining Information:

• Patient can recall key facts without prompting
• If prompting needed, patient can recall with minimal cues
• Memory lapses are not significant enough to impair decision-making
• Patient can hold information for duration of decision process

3. Weighing Information:

• Patient can articulate reasons for their decision
• Patient demonstrates logical reasoning process
• Patient can compare alternatives
• Patient's reasoning is not significantly influenced by delusions or severe depression
• Decision is consistent with patient's values (or patient can explain change)

4. Communicating Decision:

• Patient can express a clear choice
• Communication method is adequate (verbal, written, AAC device)
• Decision is stable over short period (not fluctuating rapidly without reason)

Post-Assessment:

• Document specific findings for each element
• Note any reversible factors identified
• Record capacity determination with rationale
• Plan for reassessment if capacity may fluctuate
• Identify substitute decision-maker if patient lacks capacity

Consent Discussion Template

Preoperative Consent Documentation Guide:

Patient: [Name, DOB, UR]
Procedure: [Specific procedure name]
Date/Time: [When consent obtained]
Consent Obtained By: [Name, role]

1. MEDICAL CONDITION:
   - Patient's understanding: _________________________
   - Information provided: ___________________________

2. PROPOSED TREATMENT:
   - Procedure explained: ____________________________
   - Anaesthetic technique: __________________________
   - Rationale: ______________________________________

3. MATERIAL RISKS DISCUSSED:
   - Common risks (>1%): _____________________________
   - Serious risks (regardless of frequency): ________
   - Patient-specific risks: _________________________

4. ALTERNATIVES:
   - Alternatives discussed: _________________________
   - Consequences of no treatment: ___________________

5. PATIENT QUESTIONS:
   - Questions asked: _______________________________
   - Responses given: _______________________________

6. PATIENT UNDERSTANDING:
   - Teach-back confirmation: ________________________
   - Appears to understand: Yes / No

7. DECISION:
   - Patient consents: Yes / No
   - If refused, capacity confirmed: Yes / No / N/A

8. WITNESS:
   - Interpreter used: Yes / No [Name if yes]
   - Witness present: _______________________________

Signature: _________________ Date/Time: ______________

Emergency Consent Protocol

When Patient Lacks Capacity and No SDM Available:

Immediate Actions:

1. Assess capacity using four-element test
2. Check for advance care directive
3. Search for emergency contact information
4. Attempt to contact substitute decision-maker
5. Document all attempts to obtain consent

Therapeutic Privilege Application:

• Life-threatening emergency
• No valid advance directive refusing treatment
• SDM cannot be contacted within reasonable timeframe
• Treatment necessary to preserve life or prevent serious harm
• Document specific clinical justification

Documentation Requirements:

• Nature of emergency
• Why patient lacks capacity
• Attempts to locate SDM (times, methods, results)
• Specific treatment provided under necessity doctrine
• Clinical justification for urgency

Jurisdictional Quick Reference

Communication Scripts

Opening Capacity Assessment: "I'm going to ask you some questions to make sure you understand the decision we need to make today. This is standard practice. Take your time with your answers, and let me know if anything is unclear."

When Patient Lacks Capacity: "Based on our discussion, I'm concerned that right now you're not able to fully understand and weigh up this decision. This might be due to [specific factor]. I'd like to [treat reversible factor/contact your family member/consider your advance care plan]. We'll come back to this decision when you're feeling better able to participate."

Discussing Refusal of Treatment: "I understand you've decided not to have this treatment. Can you help me understand your thinking? I want to make sure you understand what might happen without the treatment. It's important to me that this is your decision and that you're comfortable with it."

Breaking Bad News About Incapacity: "Your [family member] is quite unwell right now, and because of [condition], they're not able to make decisions for themselves. We need to make decisions about their care. I'd like to talk with you about what you think they would want, and what would be in their best interests."

Extended Case Studies

Case 3: Paediatric Assent and Parental Consent

Scenario: A 14-year-old boy requires emergency appendicectomy. He is refusing surgery, stating he is "afraid of needles." His parents are consenting but request he be "held down if necessary."

Complex Issues:

• Adolescent developing autonomy
• Valid parental consent vs. child's refusal
• Coercion and restraint concerns
• Emergency vs. elective considerations

Approach:

1. Capacity Assessment:

   • Assess maturity and understanding
   • Can he understand nature of appendicitis?
   • Does he appreciate risk of rupture?
   • Can he weigh pain of surgery vs. risk of complications?
   • Many 14-year-olds have capacity for this decision

2. Exploring Refusal:

   • Specific concerns (needles, pain, fear)
   • Address modifiable concerns (topical anaesthetic for IV, pre-medication)
   • Information about modern anaesthesia
   • Peer support if available

3. Respect for Autonomy:

   • If Gillick competent, his refusal should be respected
   • Cannot be forced even with parental consent
   • Attempt to achieve voluntary cooperation

4. If Lacks Capacity:

   • Parental consent valid
   • But cannot use physical restraint unethically
   • Consider sedation or anaesthetic induction method that addresses fears
   • Child's assent still preferred even if not legally required

5. Documentation:

   • Capacity assessment with rationale
   • Attempts to address concerns
   • Basis for proceeding or not proceeding
   • Child's views recorded

Outcome: Many such scenarios resolve with patience, addressing specific fears, and respecting the young person's autonomy while ensuring safety. Rushed physical restraint traumatizes and violates rights.

Case 4: Complex Multicultural Family Dynamics

Scenario: A 70-year-old woman from a patriarchal cultural background needs cardiac surgery. Her husband insists on making all decisions and refuses to allow his wife to be told she has cancer. The patient asks you directly, "Do I have cancer?"

Complex Issues:

• Cultural norms vs. individual autonomy
• Truth-telling in terminal illness
• Gender dynamics in decision-making
• Patient's direct question vs. family's wishes
• Potential collusion with concealment

Approach:

1. Individual Assessment:

   • Speak with patient alone if possible
   • Assess her understanding and preferences
   • Does she want to know? (many patients do, despite family assumptions)
   • Respect her right to information about her own body

2. Family Meeting:

   • Explain Australian/NZ legal and ethical requirements
   • Patient with capacity has right to information
   • Concealing diagnosis is not legally or ethically sustainable
   • Explore fears (e.g., patient will give up hope, become depressed)
   • Address with support services, not concealment

3. Cultural Mediation:

   • Involve cultural liaison or interpreter
   • Explore whether compromise possible (patient told, but in supportive way)
   • Acknowledge cultural values while upholding individual rights
   • Gradual disclosure if appropriate

4. The Conversation:

   • Patient's direct question requires honest answer
   • "Yes, there is cancer. Let me explain what we know and what we can do."
   • SPIKES protocol for breaking bad news
   • Provide hope through treatment options and support

5. Documentation:

   • Family dynamics and cultural context
   • Patient's expressed wishes
   • Information provided
   • Decision-making process

Case 5: Advance Directive Ambiguity

Scenario: A 68-year-old man has an advance directive stating: "If I am terminally ill, I do not want heroic measures or machines keeping me alive." He presents with acute appendicitis requiring surgery. His children insist on surgery, arguing the directive doesn't apply.

Complex Issues:

• Ambiguous language ("heroic measures," "terminally ill")
• Emergency vs. clearly terminal situation
• Family interpretation vs. patient intent
• Validity and applicability of directive

Approach:

1. Assess Validity:

   • Made with capacity? Yes (documented)
   • Voluntary? Yes
   • Clear and specific? No (ambiguous terms)

2. Assess Applicability:

   • "Terminally ill" - does acute appendicitis make him terminally ill?
   • Natural history of untreated appendicitis: potentially fatal, but curable with surgery
   • "Heroic measures" - does appendicectomy constitute heroic measures?
   • Current situation likely not what patient anticipated

3. Interpretation:

   • Directive likely intended for end-stage chronic illness
   • Emergency curable condition different context
   • Surgery is standard treatment, not "heroic"

4. Decision:

   • Proceed with surgery if in patient's best interests
   • Document rationale for not applying directive
   • If appendicitis perforates and becomes life-threatening, reassess

5. Family Communication:

   • Explain interpretation of directive
   • Clarify that surgery is appropriate standard care
   • Reassure children decision respects father's wishes

Quality Assurance and Audit

Consent Process Audit Tool

Structure and Process Measures:

Outcome Measures:

• Consent-related complaints per 1000 procedures
• Incidents related to consent issues
• Legal claims citing consent deficiencies
• Patient-reported understanding scores

Competency Framework

ANZCA Trainee Milestones:

Basic Level (Year 1-2):

• Can explain routine procedures and common risks
• Obtains consent for ASA I-II patients
• Recognizes when to seek help with complex consent
• Understands capacity assessment basics

Intermediate Level (Year 3-4):

• Manages consent for high-risk patients
• Assesses capacity in straightforward cases
• Handles refusal of treatment appropriately
• Documents complex consent discussions

Advanced Level (Fellowship):

• Manages complex capacity assessments
• Navigates conflicting family dynamics
• Applies advance directives appropriately
• Leads family conferences
• Supervises junior trainees in consent

Consultant Level:

• Develops departmental consent policies
• Handles most complex ethical dilemmas
• Provides expert opinion on capacity disputes
• Leads quality improvement in consent processes
• Acts as expert witness on consent issues

---

References

1. Rogers v Whitaker [1992] HCA 58; (1992) 175 CLR 479.
2. Re C (Adult: Refusal of Treatment) [1994] 1 WLR 290.
3. Re MB (Medical Treatment) [1997] 2 FLR 426.
4. Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789.
5. St George's Healthcare NHS Trust v S [1998] 3 All ER 673.
6. ANZCA. PS02(G) Position Statement on Consent and Capacity. Melbourne: ANZCA; 2024.
7. ANZCA. PG67(G) Guideline for the Care of Patients at the End-of-Life. Melbourne: ANZCA; 2022.
8. ANZCA. PS08(G) Position Statement on Incident Reporting. Melbourne: ANZCA; 2023.
9. Medical Board of Australia. Good Medical Practice: A Code of Conduct for Doctors in Australia. Melbourne: MBA; 2022.
10. Medical Council of New Zealand. Good Medical Practice. Wellington: MCNZ; 2020.
11. Health and Disability Commissioner. Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights. Wellington: HDC; 1996.
12. Victorian Government. Medical Treatment Planning and Decisions Act 2016 (Vic).
13. Queensland Government. Powers of Attorney Act 1998 (Qld).
14. New South Wales Government. Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW).
15. Grisso T, Appelbaum PS. Assessing Competence to Consent to Treatment: A Guide for Physicians and Other Health Professionals. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998.
16. Etchells E, Darzins P, Silberfeld M, et al. Assessment of patient capacity to consent to treatment. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14(1):27-34. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.00277.x
17. Berg JW, Appelbaum PS, Lidz CW, Parker LS. Informed Consent: Legal Theory and Clinical Practice. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001.
18. White BP, McDonald F, Willmott L, et al. Doctors' knowledge of the law on withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining medical treatment. Med J Aust. 2014;201(5):272-276. doi:10.5694/mja13.00168
19. Smith AK, McDermott K, Murali K, et al. Decision-making near the end of life. BMJ. 2023;380:e070133. doi:10.1136/bmj-2022-070133
20. Willmott L, White BP, Howard M, et al. The legal status of advance directives in Australia. Med J Aust. 2020;213(4):168-173. doi:10.5694/mja2.50683
21. Parker M, Colyvas K, Ward K, et al. Understanding the context for decision-making about life-sustaining treatment. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2021;11(3):261-268. doi:10.1136/bmjspcare-2020-002456
22. Sinclair C, Auret K, Evans S, et al. Advance care planning documentation in Australia: A systematic review. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2021;11(3):305-316. doi:10.1136/bmjspcare-2019-002032
23. Ries NM, Mansfield E, Poole K, et al. End-of-life decision-making across Canada. Health Law Can. 2017;37(3):85-99.
24. Charlesworth G, Wilkinson D. Competence in the context of mental disorder. Med Law Rev. 2020;28(3):459-482. doi:10.1093/medlaw/fwz024
25. Owen GS, Szmukler G, Richardson G, et al. Decision-making capacity for treatment in psychiatric patients. Br J Psychiatry. 2013;203(6):461-467. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.113.126813
26. Ganzini L, Volicer L, Nelson WA, et al. Pitfalls in assessment of decision-making capacity. Psychosomatics. 2003;44(3):237-243. doi:10.1176/appi.psy.44.3.237
27. Appelbaum PS. Assessment of patients' competence to consent to treatment. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(18):1834-1840. doi:10.1056/NEJMcp074045
28. Stepanovska M, Wollersheim H, Huber M. Advance care planning in multicultural settings. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2023;65(2):e105-e115. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2022.09.012
29. Organ and Tissue Authority. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Attitudes to Organ Donation: Research Report. Canberra: OTA; 2023.
30. Organ and Tissue Authority. Reflect Reconciliation Action Plan 2025-2026. Canberra: OTA; 2025.
31. Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet. Cultural Safety in Health Care. Perth: Edith Cowan University; 2024.
32. Medical Council of New Zealand. Te Whanake: Cultural Competence Standards. Wellington: MCNZ; 2022.
33. Durie M. Whaiora: Māori Health Development. 2nd ed. Auckland: Oxford University Press; 1998.
34. Health Quality and Safety Commission New Zealand. Advance Care Planning Programme. Wellington: HQSC; 2023.
35. Australian Law Reform Commission. Elder Abuse - A National Legal Response. Sydney: ALRC; 2017.
36. NSW Health. Consent to Medical Treatment - Patient Information. Sydney: NSW Health; 2022.
37. Victorian Department of Health. Advance Care Planning Implementation Guide. Melbourne: DoH; 2023.
38. Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Guardianship and Administration. Brisbane: QCAT; 2023.
39. South Australian Government. Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act 1995 (SA).
40. Western Australian Government. Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA).
41. Australian Capital Territory Government. Guardianship and Management of Property Act 1991 (ACT).
42. Northern Territory Government. Adult Guardianship Act 1988 (NT).
43. Tasmanian Government. Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 (Tas).
44. New Zealand Government. Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 (NZ).
45. New Zealand Government. Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 (NZ).
46. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. National Consensus Statement: Essential Elements for Recognising and Responding to Acute Physiological Deterioration. Sydney: ACSQHC; 2021.
47. Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists. Supporting Professionalism and Performance - A Guide for Anaesthetists and Pain Medicine Physicians. Melbourne: ANZCA; 2024.
48. Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112.