(1) The following shall
be necessary elements of proof that injury resulted from health
care in a civil negligence case or arbitration involving the
issue of the alleged breach of the duty to secure an informed
consent by a patient or his or her representatives against a
health care provider:
(a) That the health care provider failed to inform the
patient of a material fact or facts relating to the treatment;
(b) That the patient consented to the treatment without
being aware of or fully informed of such material fact or facts;
(c) That a reasonably prudent patient under similar
circumstances would not have consented to the treatment if
informed of such material fact or facts;
(d) That the treatment in question proximately caused injury
to the patient.
(2) Under the provisions of this section a fact is defined
as or considered to be a material fact, if a reasonably prudent
person in the position of the patient or his or her
representative would attach significance to it deciding whether
or not to submit to the proposed treatment.
(3) Material facts under the provisions of this section
which must be established by expert testimony shall be either:
(a) The nature and character of the treatment proposed and
administered;
(b) The anticipated results of the treatment proposed and
administered;
(c) The recognized possible alternative forms of treatment;
or
(d) The recognized serious possible risks, complications,
and anticipated benefits involved in the treatment administered
and in the recognized possible alternative forms of treatment,
including nontreatment.
(4) If a recognized health care emergency exists and the
patient is not legally competent to give an informed consent
and/or a person legally authorized to consent on behalf of the
patient is not readily available, his or her consent to required
treatment will be implied.
[2011 c 336 § 252; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 56 § 10.]
NOTES:
Severability -- 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 56: See note following RCW 4.16.350.