[2025] EWHC 2025 (KB)

On 13 June 2019, prior to surgery, the defendant consented the claimant. The consent form was completed and signed by the defendant by hand, and he included several complications under “Significant, unavoidable or frequently occurring risks” - “bleeding infection, pain, incontinence, bowel urgency, anal stenosis” as possible complications. The consent form also records that the claimant had been given the EIDO leaflet “which explains the risks and benefits of the proposed procedure”. The defendant said that he consented her by reiterating all the risks prior to surgery. The consent form was also counter signed by a nurse who was present during the consenting process and who signed to confirm that the consent process has taken place appropriately and that the patient wishes to go ahead with the surgery.

The defendant said in evidence that his standard practice for consenting patients prior to an operation is to ask the patient about the surgery they are having, whether they are experiencing the same symptoms, whether they have read the EIDO leaflet and if so, whether they have any further questions about the surgery. Then he would complete the consent form and write down the complications in front of the patient. He ticks the box to confirm that the patient has been provided with the EIDO leaflet, he then signs and dates the consent form, the patient also signs and dates it and then the admitting nurse signs to confirm the consent form.

The consent form was signed by the claimant although she says that she did not think that she was at risk of anal stenosis as this was not something that the defendant mentioned when discussing possible risks of the surgery. The claimant said in cross-examination that she was only asked to sign the consent form some 5-10 minutes prior to the surgery.

Professor Phillips’ 1^st report dated June 2024 states, “the consent form includes risks as ‘Bleeding, Infection, Pain, Incontinence, Bowel Urgency, Anal Stenosis and shows that she had been supplied with EIDO information. In my view consent was adequate”. He also says, “it would seem to me there is very good evidence of a proper discussion and proper consent having been obtained.”