Consent with complications in mind

Abstract

Parity of esteemdescribes an aspiration to see mental health valued as much as physical. Proponents point to poorer funding of mental health services, greater stigma and poorer physical health for those with mental illness. Stubborn persistence of such disparities suggests a need to do more than stipulate ethical and legal obligations toward justice or fairness. Here, I propose that we should rely more on our legal obligations toward informed consent. The latter requires clinicians to disclose information about risks in a way that is sufficient to satisfy what a prudent patient would reasonably want to understand in their circumstances. I argue that inadequate disclosure of the mental health complications of common surgeries risks exposing the craft specialists performing them to clinical negligence claims. Patients could argue they were counselled about said risks, improperly or not at all: improperly, if advised by a craft specialist lacking sufficient expertise in mental health; not at all, if mental health complications were simply forgotten. From this, I argue that a prudent approach for craft specialists would be to support and fund ‘integrative’ specialists (from rehabilitation medicine, liaison psychiatry and health psychology), more often to work alongside them within a multidisciplinary team that is better placed to navigate consent (via a prehabilitation process, for example). Based on duties toward consent, the extension of this type of coworking is another way to improve the resource and understanding accorded to mental health—but by starting within the citadels of physical health.