It is generally accepted in legal and bioethical discourse that the patient has a right to self-determination. In practice though, this is often not the case. Paternalism is waning and it is increasingly recognised that there are values other than medical factors which determine the choices that patients make. Unfortunately, these developments have not resulted in huge advances for patient self-determination, which is largely because the consent model has fundamental flaws that constrain its effectiveness. This book sets out to offer an alternative model to consent. In the property model proposed here, the patient’s bodily integrity is protected from unauthorised invasion, and their legitimate expectation to be provided with the relevant information to make an informed decision is taken to be a proprietary right. It is argued that the property model potentially overcomes the limitations of the consent model, including the obstacle caused by the requirement to prove causation in consent cases. The author proposes that this model could in the future provide an alternative or complementary approach for the courts to consider when dealing with cases relating to self-determination in health care.
"Edozien argues that the generally accepted method of ensuring self-determination by medical patients—that of securing the patient’s consent—is ineffective. He argues instead for a property model, where the patients’ bodily integrity is protected from unauthorized invasion, and their legitimate expectation to be provided with the relevant information to make an informed decision is taken to be a property right."
Law and Social Inquiry Journal
"Edozien’s book represents a comprehensive and rigorous piece of original research. His argument that the consent model is inadequate as a legal mechanism and ethical justification is compelling and the book is structured to ensure it has maximum impact. The book is easy to follow and accessible to readers who may not have extensive prior knowledge of the field… Edozien’s book lends weight to calls for reform in this area and adds further colour to the palette of options at policymakers’ disposal."
Medical Law International, 2017, Vol. 17(3) 219–223
"[T]he way in which Edozien handles his argument is to be commended, for it is illuminating about the possibilities and the issues with the current consent model, legally, ethically and, possibly more importantly, the way in which it is operationalised in health-care practice. It certainly adds, in a positive manner, to the rich debate on consent in health care.
Medical Law Review, Vol. 0, No. 0, pp. 1–6