How far should doctors go to inform patients about alternative procedures? Elizabeth Wale reports
In Birch v UCL Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2008] EWHC 2237 (QB), [2008] All ER (D) 113 (Sep), Mrs Birch suff ered a stroke caused by a cerebral catheter angiogram on 21 June 2003. The claimant contended that the decision to undertake the angiogram was negligent and that the investigation of her condition should have been by (noninvasive) MRI, and that the diff erent imaging methods—catheter angiography and MRI—and their comparative risks should have been discussed with her as a result of which she would have declined catheter angiography.
The claimant was admitted to Watford General Hospital on 18 June 2003. She was noted to have diabetes which was under very poor control. A CT scan was required and a neurological opinion was requested to rule out sub-arachnoid haemorrhage. Th e neurologist’s view was that she was likely to be suffering from “vascular third nerve palsy”, a benign condition which usually healed itself spontaneously with time. However, because of some atypical symptoms an urgent MRI was requested to exclude two
