Introduction
Recently, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a plea that wanted mandatory
disclosure by the medical professionals regarding the risks and adverse effects
associated with the prescribed medications. The petitioner has argued that an
additional slip in the regional language, along with the prescriptions, should include
all possible risks and side effects of pharmaceutical products. This case is important
to discuss what constitutes the rights of a patient and the responsibilities of
healthcare providers.
Background
Advocate Prashant Bhushan presented the plea, pointing out that the majority of
patient harms are caused by adverse drug reactions. He said “informed consent”
requires patients to know their treatment’s contraindications. Contrarily, though
medicine packs have a prescription to be accompanied by the pharmacist’s
information regarding contraindications, Bhushan alleged that doctors do not have a
similar onus at this moment. The petitioner was seeking to get patients to become
better-informed about their medicines so they could make proper decisions.
Case Summary
At the hearing, the bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan expressed their
apprehensions in the respectability of the plea. They observed that if such a demand
is made, general practitioners would find it difficult to handle their patient loads.
Justice Gavai also hinted at another aspect that doctors are already afraid of being brought within the ambit of consumer protection law. Responding to the
recommendation of the petitioner that information about drugs should be displayed at
pharmacies, Justice Viswanathan made an appeal to the establishment of
information notice boards there that patients be encouraged to check the labels of
drugs purchased by them. The Delhi High Court had earlier dismissed the petition
holding it fell within the policy concerns of legislation.
Conclusion
Important in this decision by the Supreme Court is the fact that it highlights issues of
patient information and medical accountability even more. It is true that on the
importance of informed consent, the court still acknowledged the practical difficulties
of compelling doctors to mandatory disclosure. The decision has once again fuelled
debates in healthcare circles pertaining to the rights of patients and their safety and
the responsibilities of the medical fraternity towards critical information regarding the
prescribed treatment.
