Georgia Darviris Case Summary

Imagine waking up from surgery believing you underwent a completely different procedure than what you first had imagine. That's what Georgia Darviris had to experience in the winter of 2004. She gave consent for the doctor to perform a simple fissurectomy. After waking up, Darviris had been informed she underwent a hemorrhoidectomy. A completely different surgery. She was given a spinal anesthetic before her preformed surgery, therefore she was awake. She claimed that a nurse nor her doctor, Petros, gave any indication during the surgery that she wasn't receiving the planned fissurectomy. She argued that she would not have consented to this procedure due to a family member having major complications with the same surgery. After receiving
Required in all cases and in every form of consent is a “description of any reasonably foreseeable risks or discomforts to the subject” If a procedure had more than a minimal risk then “an explanation as to whether any medical treatments are available, if injury occurs and, if so, what they consist of, or where further information may be obtained” must be provided. In the case where the patient is consenting to a research study the rules and requirements are different, required is a statement stating that
“refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which the subject is otherwise entitled, and the subject may discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss of
A patient can not win a lawsuit with a doctor for claiming that the doctor did not comply with consent forms the patient must have been injured and “there must be a connection between the lack of informed consent and your injury.” The patient must claim “with the right information, you wouldn't have consented to the medical treatment that ended up harming you” An example previously mentioned would be the Darviris vs. Petros case, Darviris claimed she wouldn't have agreed to the procedure performed on her because of a family member’s complications with the same procedure. To win a malpractice lawsuit related to informed consent “the harm you suffered wasn't disclosed as a known risk of the procedure, even though most doctors would have discussed that particular risk as part of the informed consent process.” If a doctor kept risks from a patient and those risks harmed the patient the lawsuit would usually favor the patients. An lawsuit example would be Martin vs. Lowney, MArtin claimed that ehn being explained the procedure she was told that the scar would be one inch in length. When she woke up she had a six inch scar on her stomach. She accused Lowney of not explaining in full detail all the risks of the operation and not providing all information required for informed consent. When MArtin was explaining the incision had released bacteria into her bloodstream it