The recent report (April 26) that state hospital consent forms are to be upgraded is welcome news, although very belated. Way back in the mid 1990s, as the then Director of Surgery at St Luke’s Hospital, I had done an in-depth analysis of consent forms as adopted in various European and American surgical institutions and came to the conclusion that the rather simplistic consent form used in our hospitals was ethically and legally wanting. I had advised the Department of Health accordingly and had in fact drawn up an upgraded form, in English and Maltese.

This consent form, while recording the details of the patient (or parent in the case of a minor) as well as the name of the physician authorised by the patient to treat him, also required that the patient consented to a specified treatment which had been explained to him including possible complications, as well as any additional or alternative procedures which may become necessary for his well-being during the course of the procedure.

He also agreed to a specified type of anaesthesia, to the infusion of liquids, including blood if necessary, and consented for any tissue removed from his body to be further examined for diagnostic purposes.

The patient was also given the opportunity to specify in writing any procedure he wished not to be carried out on him.

This form would have been a much more appropriate document than the one then pertaining and which I believe is still in use at present.

Ironically while no action was taken in the public hospitals the two private hospitals which opened at the time both adopted this form either as such or with minor modifications to suit their requirements.

In The Times’ report it is stated that two surgeons claimed they give more detailed explanations to their patients. While I am sure that this is true in their case can we be sure that every physician does so?

Moreover, it is desirable that any instructions, whether by the patient or his doctor, should be recorded in writing.

The report also quoted the legal advisor to the Health Department as saying that the present form is valid in court. But which court? Similar simplistic consent forms have been successfully challenged in many European courts. Hence the criticism leveled at our hospitals by the European Active Citizens Network which, unfortunately, contributed to lowering Malta’s EU ranking in terms of patients’ rights.

Patients should not be expected to simply endorse a generalised document but are entitled to informed consent preferably backed by informative literature handed out to the patient during the pre-operative period. Whether the reported intention to upgrade the consent forms used in our state hospitals has been conditioned by pressure from patients’ action groups or by EU requirements, it is certainly a step in the right direction and should be implemented without further delay.